State v. Tuia

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: April 18, 2016
• Docket: SCWC-12-0000685
• Status: Published

Opinion

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000685 18-APR-2016 01:05 PM

SCWC-12-0000685

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

STATE OF HAWAI'I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

NATUITASINA CYRIL TUIA,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-12-0000685; 1DTA-12-01552)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Natuitasina Cyril Tuia

(Tuia) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA)

July 3, 2014 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 4,

2014 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court

of the First Circuit’s (district court) July 20, 2012 Notice of

Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (district court

judgment). The district court found Tuia guilty of Operating a

Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), in

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1) and

(a)(3) (Supp. 2012).1 This court accepted Tuia’s Application for

Writ of Certiorari, and we now affirm the ICA’s Judgment on

Appeal and the district court’s judgment.

On certiorari, Tuia contends that (1) his Miranda

rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Hawai'i Constitution

were violated when, while in custody, he was asked by the police,

without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood

alcohol test, which was likely to incriminate himself; (2) his

statutory right to an attorney was violated; (3) his due process

rights under Article I, Section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution

were violated when the police told his that he “shall” be subject

to 30 days in jail if he did not take a blood alcohol test; and

(4) the district court improperly allowed the State to amend its

complaint to allege the requisite mens rea for the HRS § 291E­

1 HRS § 291E-61(a) states in relevant part:

(a) A person commits the offense of operating a

vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the

person operates or assumes actual physical control of

a vehicle:

(1) While under the influence of alcohol in an

amount sufficient to impair the person’s normal

mental faculties or ability to care for the

person and guard against casualty;

. . . .

(3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two

hundred ten liters of breath.

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

61(a)(1) charge and double jeopardy would bar retrial on that

charge.

In this court’s recent summary disposition order in

SCWC-12-897, State v. Kam, we held that “the ICA correctly

concluded that the district court properly permitted the State to

amend” an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge to allege the requisite mens

rea. State v. Kam, SCWC-12-0000897 (Haw. Feb. 25, 2016) (SDO) at

2. Accordingly, the district court properly permitted the State

to amend Tuia’s HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge to allege mens rea.

Tuia was convicted for violating both HRS § 291E­

61(a)(1) and (a)(3). Either subsection can serve as the basis

for a conviction under HRS § 291E-61. See State v. Grindles, 70

Haw. 528, 530-31, 777 P.2d 1187, 1189-90 (1989); State v. Caleb,

79 Hawai'i 336, 339, 902 P.2s 971, 974 (1995); State v.

Mezurashi, 77 Hawai'i 94, 98, 881 P.2d 1240, 1244 (1994).

Insofar as the HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge was properly amended,

and insofar as Tuia does not challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting his conviction for violating HRS § 291E­

61(a)(1), his OVUII conviction stands. There is no need for this

court to address his argument that the blood test results

supporting his HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) conviction were obtained in

violation of his Miranda rights, his statutory right to counsel,

and/or his due process rights. Additionally, Tuia’s double

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

jeopardy argument is irrelevant because we now affirm his

conviction.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s July 3, 2014

Judgment on Appeal and the district court’s July 20, 2012

judgment are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 18, 2016.

Jonathan Burge /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioner /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Brian R. Vincent for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson