Case Title: State v. Zerk

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LBRaRy

‘**sNOT FOR PUBLICATION***
ee
No. 26343

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant

81 vison

aa

FRED DOUGLAS ZERK, Defendant-Appeliee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(HPD TRAFFIC NOS. 001452897 & 001452899)

(ey: Mook tees Levansany ang DUEL, 39.3
and Reobay J.) Dissenting in bart” and
concurting in Pert, With Whom Nakayama, Jey Joins)

by ies January 14, 2004 notice, Plainestt-Appelant
state of Hawai" (the prosecution) appeals from the December 18,
2002 “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting
betendant’s Motion to Dismiss of the district court of the first
circuit (the court)! dismissing, without prejudice, Count II of
the Septenber 12, 2002 indictment charging Defendant-Appeliee
red douglas Zerk (Defendant) with Count 1, habitually driving
under the influence of intoxicating Liguor or drugs (habitval
bor), Hovat"i Revised Statutes (HRS) $§ 291-4.4(a) (2) (Supp.
2000); Count 12, driving after license suspended or revoked for
dsiving under the influence of intoxicating Liquor (suspended

License for DUI), (HRS) § 291-4.5 (Supp. 2000); and Count ITT,

  

driving without no-fault insurance, HRS § 431:10C-104 (no no-

' The Honorable Clarence A. Pacarro presided
‘senor FOR PUBLICATION®#*

 

fault).? On appeal the prosecution argues, inter alia, that “the
trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed the
indictment as the [prosecution] properly charged Defendant under
the statute that vas in effect at the time Defendant committed
the offense” and “assuming arquendo, that the indictment
incorrectly cited to HRS $ 291-4.5, the dismissal of the
indictment was improper as such alleged error was a ‘formal
defect’ that did not mislead Defendant to his prejudice.” State
¥aYouna, No. 25610, slip op. at 3-4 (Mar. 30, 2005), held that
HRS § 291-4.5 (2003 & Supp. 2000) was substantially re-enacted in
RS § 291E-62 (Supp. 2004) and is dispositive of Count 11.7
Therefore,

In accordance with Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 35, and after carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and duly considering and analyzing the

Jaw relevant to the arguments and issues raised by the parties,

 

+ on October 28, 2002, the circuit court of the first circuit
dismissed the habitually driving under the influence offense charged in Count
T. "Count T'is not a subject of this appeal.

> defendant's argunents that (1) “prosecution 1s barred by the
general rule prohibiting posterepes! prosecutions,” (2) “prosecution is becred
By the plain meaning of Act 69's repeal of HRS § 291-4.5," and (3)
“prosecution is berrea because HRS § 2916-62 is not a ‘substantial re-
enactment’ of HRS § 2914.5" are addressed or subsumed in the analyses of the
hajerity and dissenting opinions in Young. Defendant further argues that

of denity," an ambiguity, if any, attendant to the

of HRS § 251-4.8 should be Feadlved in. [Defendant’ a)
favor.” However, no ambiguity is discerned in the repeal of HRS § 291-4.5.

2

 

     
‘**NOT FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

XT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s order with
respect to Count II is vacated, along with Count III,* and the
case remanded to the court in accordance with the order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 18, 2005.

on the briefs: Ir

Mark Yuen, Deputy Prosecuting

Attorney, City £ County of :
Honolulu, for plaintiff- Bhai rcnve—
appellant.

Hae demir
R. Patrick McPherson (Law “ee
Oftice of Paul J. cunney),
for Gefendant-appellee-

 

Apparently the court did not specifically rule as to Count IIT,
bot dismissed the indictment in its entirety. Therefore, the court's
December i€, 2003 order, insofar as it pertains to Count TiT, is also vacated