State v. Treat

680 P.2d 250, 67 Haw. 119

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1984

DocketNO. 9004

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 680 P.2d 250 (State v. Treat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Treat, 680 P.2d 250, 67 Haw. 119 (haw 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

PADGETT, J.

This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing an indictment for theft in the first degree. The court below held that the use of the words “receive, retain, or dispose of” made the indictment defective.

Section 708-830(7) provides:

A person commits theft if he does any of the following:

(7) Receiving stolen property. He intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another, knowing that it has been stolen, with intent to deprive the owner of the property. . . .

The indictment in question tracked the above definition. From the record, it appears that the appellee formally moved for and obtained a copy of the grand jury transcript before the motion to dismiss was considered.

Since all of the elements of the crime of theft in the first degree as defined in HRS §§ 708-831 and 708-830(7) are alleged in the indictment, it is not effective.

Moreover, as we stated in State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317, 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983):

We think that in determining whether the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated, we must look to all of the information supplied to him by the State to the point where the court passes upon the contention that his right has been violated.

Since in the present case, as in Robins, the appellee had been supplied with the grand jury transcript which clearly established the details of the crime, he had been fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing the indictment and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

PADGETT, J.

This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing an indictment for theft in the first degree. The court below held that the use of the words “receive, retain, or dispose of” made the indictment defective.

Section 708-830(7) provides:

A person commits theft if he does any of the following:

(7) Receiving stolen property. He intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another, knowing that it has been stolen, with intent to deprive the owner of the property. . . .

The indictment in question tracked the above definition. From the record, it appears that the appellee formally moved for and obtained a copy of the grand jury transcript before the motion to dismiss was considered.

Since all of the elements of the crime of theft in the first degree as defined in HRS §§ 708-831 and 708-830(7) are alleged in the indictment, it is not effective.

Moreover, as we stated in State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317, 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983):

We think that in determining whether the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated, we must look to all of the information supplied to him by the State to the point where the court passes upon the contention that his right has been violated.

Since in the present case, as in Robins, the appellee had been supplied with the grand jury transcript which clearly established the details of the crime, he had been fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing the indictment and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Related

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026

State v. Kaakimaka. ICA s.d.o., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 297. Opinion by Hiraoka, J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Opinion by Guidry J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/16/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025. S.Ct. Amended Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025 [ada].

Hawaii Supreme Court, 2025

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2025

State v. Blyenburg

499 P.3d 419 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2021)

State v. Armitage

497 P.3d 1102 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2021)

497 P.3d 71 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2021)

462 P.3d 1109 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2020)

State v. Apollonio.

311 P.3d 676 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2013)

State v. Tominiko

266 P.3d 1122 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2011)

State v. Hitchcock

235 P.3d 365 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2010)

State v. TOMINIKO

233 P.3d 719 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2010)

State v. Wheeler

219 P.3d 1170 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2009)

State v. Stan's Contracting, Inc.

137 P.3d 331 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2006)

State v. Sprattling

55 P.3d 276 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2002)

State v. Israel

890 P.2d 303 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1995)

769 P.2d 1105 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1989)

State v. Yonaha

723 P.2d 185 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 P.2d 250, 67 Haw. 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-treat-haw-1984.