Case Title: State v. Laborde

Citation: 781 P.2d 1041

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 1989-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
781 P.2d 1041 (1989) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry J. LABORDE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13510. Supreme Court of Hawaii. October 31, 1989. Arthur Indiola, Office of the Public Defender, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant. Wallace Weatherwax, Office of the Pros. Atty., City & County of Honolulu, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee. Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. PADGETT, Justice. This is an appeal from a conviction for refusal to comply with the lawful order of a police officer in violation of HRS § 709-906(1) and (4). Those statutory provisions are as follows: Appellant contends that the court below committed plain error in finding sufficient evidence to convict him of violating the section charged. We agree. The testimony of the police officer who issued the warning was that he was called to the premises where appellant and girl friend were present, met the girl friend downstairs, she recited that the appellant had hit her, the police went up to the apartment, knocked on the door and appellant let them in. As the police officer testified: In order to constitute the crime that appellant was charged with, the State must prove either that the appellant refused to leave the premises or that he returned to the premises within the twelve hour period. It is obvious that the officer, in his testimony, got it right the first time. The second arrest was because the appellant refused to sign the warning document, not because he refused to leave the premises. Obviously, he could not leave the premises since he was already under arrest. Equally obviously the statute does not require appellant to sign the warning form, and it is not a crime to refuse to do so. The State could have prosecuted appellant for physical abuse under HRS § 709-906(1), first clause. For some reason, it chose not to do so. The policeman was wrong in arresting the appellant for refusal to comply, the prosecution was wrong in prosecuting him for refusal to comply, and the judge below was wrong in convicting appellant of refusal to comply. The fact that the policeman was annoyed with the appellant for refusing to sign the warning form does not convert that refusal into a crime, nor does it justify either the prosecution or the conviction. Reversed.