State v. Watson

Hawaii Supreme Court

State v. Watson

787 P.2d 691, 71 Haw. 258

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1990

DocketNO. 13768

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 787 P.2d 691 (State v. Watson) 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. Watson, 787 P.2d 691, 71 Haw. 258 (haw 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

PADGETT, J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) (HRS § 291-4(a)(l)). Appellant contends that there was no proof that he was operating a vehicle on a public highway, and that consequently his motion to dismiss should have been granted.

We see nothing in HRS § 291-4 which requires that the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor be done on a public highway. Appellant argues that other statutes, in *259 pari materia, apply only to actions taken on public highways. It is true that other sections relating to traffic violations are limited to actions taken on public highways, but the strong public policy against the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is sufficient to extend the prohibition of the statute to any vehicle, which is exactly what the statute provides. Appellant’s contention is therefore without merit.

Linda C. Ramirez, Deputy Public Defender, on the brief for appellant. June Ikemoto, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the brief for appellee.

Appellant also contends that there was error in sentencing him as a second offender since the State introduced no evidence with respect thereto. An examination of the transcript shows that the prosecutor brought to the attention of the court a previous conviction and that appellant’s counsel made no objection to sentencing as a second offender. Any error in failing to adduce proof was therefore waived. Affirmed.

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 from a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) (HRS § 291-4(a)(l)). Appellant contends that there was no proof that he was operating a vehicle on a public highway, and that consequently his motion to dismiss should have been granted.

We see nothing in HRS § 291-4 which requires that the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor be done on a public highway. Appellant argues that other statutes, in *259 pari materia, apply only to actions taken on public highways. It is true that other sections relating to traffic violations are limited to actions taken on public highways, but the strong public policy against the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is sufficient to extend the prohibition of the statute to any vehicle, which is exactly what the statute provides. Appellant’s contention is therefore without merit.

Linda C. Ramirez, Deputy Public Defender, on the brief for appellant. June Ikemoto, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the brief for appellee.

Appellant also contends that there was error in sentencing him as a second offender since the State introduced no evidence with respect thereto. An examination of the transcript shows that the prosecutor brought to the attention of the court a previous conviction and that appellant’s counsel made no objection to sentencing as a second offender. Any error in failing to adduce proof was therefore waived. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 P.2d 691, 71 Haw. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watson-haw-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack