Case Title: State v. Pai

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** NO. SCWC-30516 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LAWRENCE PAI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30516; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-00706) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.; with Acoba, J., dissenting) Petitioner Lawrence Pai (“Pai”) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s July 14, 2011 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 14, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s April 9, 2010 Order and Notice of Entry of Order. The District Court adjudged Pai guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30516 02-MAY-2012 02:08 PM ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) provided at the time of the alleged offense, “A 1 person commits the offense of operating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 . . . [w]ith .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath[.]” 2 § 291E-61(a)(3)(2007). We accepted Pai’s application for writ 1 of certiorari and now affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal. On certiorari, Pai contends that the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in an HRS § 291E- 61(a)(3) charge. In State v. Nesmith, we agreed that mens rea need not be alleged (or proven) in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge, as the legislative intent to impose absolute liability for an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) offense plainly appears. State v. Nesmith, ____ Hawai#i ___, ___ P.3d ____ (2012). Therefore, the ICA did not gravely err in so holding. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’S Judgment on Appeal is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 3, 2012. Timothy I. MacMaster /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioner/ defendant-appellant /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Keith M. Kaneshiro, /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. Prosecuting Attorney, and Anne K. Clarkin, /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent/plaintiff- appellee