State v. Millard

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-23-0000449
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 18-JUN-2025 08:02 AM Dkt. 68 SO NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NOS. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX and 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Robert Errtte Millard (Millard)

appeals from (1) the July 7, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment

and/or Order (1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment) in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX,1 and

(2) the August 11, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order

(1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment) in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX,2 entered by the

Honolulu Division of the District Court of the First Circuit

(District Court), in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai i

(State).3

Millard raises a single point of error on appeal,

arguing that the District Court erred in denying his motion to

1 The Honorable Thomas Haia presided. 2 The Honorable Myron Takemoto presided. 3 We consolidated the CAAP-23-449 and CAAP-23-524 appeals on December 13, 2023. In CAAP-23-449, Millard appeals the 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment, and in CAAP-23-524, he appeals the 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

dismiss due to a defective complaint because the State did not

separately execute the declaration.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve

Millard's point of error as follows:

On November 28, 2022, the State charged Millard via

Complaint in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX as follows: The undersigned Deputy Prosecuting Attorney [(DPA)] of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i charges:

On or about November 27, 2022, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i, ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to wit, physical pain, to [Complaining Witness (CW)], thereby committing the offense of Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Section 707-712(1)(a) of the Hawai i Revised Statutes.

"Bodily injury" includes physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

I, [DPA], declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

The 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Complaint was dated and

electronically signed by the DPA.

On March 14, 2022, the State charged Millard via

Complaint in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX as follows: The undersigned Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i charges:

COUNT 1: On or about March 11, 2022, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i, ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to [CW], thereby committing the offense of Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Section 707-712(1)(a) of the Hawai i Revised Statutes.

COUNT 2: On or about March 11, 2022 in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i, ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm [CW], did strike, shove, kick, or otherwise touch [CW] in an offensive manner and/or subject [CW] to offensive physical contact and/or did insult, taunt, or challenge [CW] in a manner likely to provoke an immediate violent response and/or that would cause [CW] to reasonably believe that ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD intended to cause bodily injury to [CW] or damage to the property of [CW] thereby committing the offense of

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Harassment, in violation of Section 711-1106(1)(a) and/or 711-1106(1)(b) of the Hawai i Revised Statutes.

I, [DPA], declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

The District Court concluded that only one signature

was required for the Complaint (in both cases) because the

Complaint and the "I declare" language were a single document.

Millard argues that the State filed a defective

Complaint in both cases because the Complaints did not meet the

requirements of Hawai i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)

Rule 2.2(g). Millard contends that this "I declare" language must

have a second separate signature. Millard's argument lacks

merit.

HRPP Rule 2.2(g) provides as follows: Rule 2.2. FORM OF PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS.

. . . .

(g) Signing of pleadings and other documents. Every pleading and other document shall be signed by the party or the party’s counsel. Where 2 or more documents are filed together, the party or party’s counsel need only provide one signature at the close of the documents filed together, with the exception that where affidavits or declarations of counsel are filed together with pleadings or other documents, the affidavits or declarations must be separately executed. Documents filed through JEFS shall be signed as provided by Rule 5 of the Hawai i Electronic Filing and Service Rules.

(Emphasis added).

Accordingly, a declaration must be separately executed

when it is one of two documents filed together with a pleading.

See id.

Here, the "I declare" language is not a separate

document unto itself. Rather, as the District Court determined,

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the "I declare" language was "simply the affirmation portion of

the complaint." Accordingly, the HRPP Rule 2.2(g) requirement

that a declaration document be separately executed does not apply

to the "I declare" language in the Complaint. 4

For these reasons, the District Court's July 7, 2023

1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment and August 11, 2023 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX

Judgment are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 18, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Eric Lee Niemeyer, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth City & County of Honolulu, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellee.

4 We note that the Hawai i Supreme Court has upheld the sufficiency of complaints containing the "I declare" language without a second signature, albeit on other grounds. E.g., State v. Mortensen-Young, 152 Hawai i 385, 387-88, 399, 526 P.3d 362, 364-65, 376 (2023) (holding complaints were sufficient because they complied with HRPP Rule 7(d)).