Case Title: State v. Kamal

Citation: 966 P.2d 604

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 1998-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
966 P.2d 604 (1998) 88 Hawai`i 292 STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohamed El Cheikl KAMAL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 20162. Supreme Court of Hawai`i. June 29, 1998. As Amended June 30, 1998. Reconsideration Denied August 31, 1998. Richard Sing, Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-appellant Mohamed El Cheikl Kamal, on the brief. Donna M. Woo, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai`i, on the brief. Alexa D.M. Fujise, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for the plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai`i. Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ. LEVINSON, Justice. The defendant-appellant Mohamed El Cheikl Kamal appeals from the judgment and conviction of "peddling," in violation of Revised Ordinances of the City and County of Honolulu (ROCCH) § 29-6.2(b)(7) (1996).[1] On appeal, Kamal argues (1) that he was not "selling" his services and, therefore, that his activities did not fall within the ambit of the peddling ordinance and (2) that the peddling ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, inasmuch as it does not clearly define the activity it seeks to prohibit. Because Kamal's points on appeal are without merit, we affirm the district court's judgment of conviction entered against him. On May 9, 1996, Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer Larry Kahn-Smith observed Kamal drawing caricatures on a public sidewalk located at the corner of Kalakaua and Seaside Avenues, on the Waikiki Peninsula. A sign adjacent to Kamal's easel read, "My art is not for sale. Though I heartily accept donations. Thank you for supporting my art." When Officer Kahn-Smith observed a man receive a drawing from Kamal and give Kamal an unknown amount of money, Officer Kahn-Smith cited Kamal for violation of the peddling ordinance. Prior to the May 9, 1996 incident, Kamal had been warned by police that peddling was not permitted in Waikiki. Accordingly, Kamal contacted Tim Turner, a representative of the City and County of Honolulu's Office of Information and Complaint. He was told, "We have rules which might affect you," and was given a copy of the applicable ordinance. (Emphasis added.) In Kamal's view, his activity was not prohibited by the statute. At trial, Officer Kahn-Smith conceded that he had not heard Kamal ask for money from anyone, nor had he heard any bartering about price between Kamal and the recipient of the sketch. Kamal testified that some of the people he sketched did not give him money for his art: Kamal's counsel attempted to analogize his client's conduct with that of the plaintiff in Sunn v. City and County of Honolulu, 852 F. Supp. 903 (D.Haw.1994), in which the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i, relying on decisions of the state district courts, ruled that a street musician who accepted donations was not pedding in violation of ROCCH § 29-6.2. However, the trial court ruled that the facts in the instant matter were distinguishable from those of Sunn because: (1) Sunn's music was directed at the general public, whereas Kamal's caricatures were of specific individuals; and (2) those who made donations to Kamal had tangible mementos of the donations, while Sunn's listeners did not. Accordingly, Kamal was convicted of peddling. This appeal followed. State v. Kane, 87 Hawai`i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998) (quoting Aickin v. Ocean View Investments Co., 84 Hawai`i 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997)) (brackets in original). State v. Davia, 87 Hawai`i 249, 254, 953 P.2d 1347, 1352 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawaii v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai`i 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998)) (some brackets added and some in original). State v. Lee, 75 Haw. 80, 90-91, 856 P.2d 1246, 1253 (1993) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks, ellipsis points, and brackets deleted). State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i 127, 137-38, 890 P.2d 1167, 1177-78 (1995) (some brackets and ellipses in original and some added) (footnotes and some citations omitted). The parties apparently agree that the resolution of this case turns upon the definition of the words "sell or offer for sale" as they are employed in the peddling ordinance. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.1991) defines "sale" in relevant part as a "transfer of property [or] providing of services for consideration." Id. at 1337. The foregoing definition is in accord with the legislatively defined meanings of the terms "sale" and "to sell" as they are utilized in various Hawai`i statutes. For example, Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1240 (1993) (pertaining to the regulation of promotion and possession of drugs and intoxicating compounds) provides in relevant part that "[t]o sell' means to transfer to another for consideration." HRS § 237-43(d) (Supp. 1997) (pertaining to the general excise tax) defines "sale" as "transfer of property for consideration" and a "seller" as "any person who sells or transfers any property...." HRS § 328K-7(c) (Supp.1997) (pertaining to the sale of cigarettes) provides in relevant part that "`sell' or `sale' means to ... to deliver for value or in any other manner than purely gratuitously; to peddle; ... or to traffic in." (Emphasis added.) These statutory definitions reflect a common legislative understanding of the terms "sale" and "to sell" that clearly extends to and includes the conduct for which Kamal was prosecuted in the present case. Notwithstanding that he was not paid for all of the drawings he distributed, whenever Kamal accepted valuable consideration for one of his drawings, as he did in the present case, he engaged in a "sale" pursuant to the plain meaning of ROCCH § 29-6.2. Kamal next contends that ROCCH § 29-6.2 is unconstitutionally vague, inasmuch as the peddling ordinance does not expressly define the word "sell" and, therefore, does not inform "artists, nor law enforcement, nor anyone else ... which activities are permitted and which prohibited." However, the absence of an express definition of the word "sell" in ROCCH § 29-6.2 is not constitutionally fatal because we interpret statutes in pari materia and, as the above discussion demonstrates, numerous definitions of the terms "sell" and "sale," all of which are consistent with one another, may be found in the laws of Hawai`i. Moreover, *608 the term "sell" has a definite, widely-understood meaning consonant with these definitions. Accordingly, we hold that ROCCH § 29-6.2 affords a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he or she may act accordingly and, therefore, is not unconstitutionally vague. For the reasons outlined above, Kamal's points of error on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment against him and his conviction for violating ROCCH § 29-6.2(b)(7). [1] ROCCH 29-6.2 provides in relevant part: Regulations affecting peddlers. .... (b) Notwithstanding any ordinance to the contrary, it is unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, rent or offer for rent, goods, wares, merchandise, foodstuffs, refreshments or other kinds of property or services in the following areas: . . . . (7) Waikiki Peninsula upon the public streets, alleys, sidewalks, malls, parks, beaches and other public places in Waikiki commencing at the entrance to the Ala Wai Canal, thence along the Ala Wai Canal to Kapahulu Avenue, thence, along the diamond head property line of Kapahulu Avenue to the ocean, thence along the ocean back to the entrance of the Ala Wai Canal[.]