Title: State v. Jim

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
No. 25318 5

 

HY 1 ve sooe

ase

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

as

STATE OF HAWAT'I, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appeilant

"

HAROLD JIM, Defendant-Appellant /Cross-Appellee

 

APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. NO. 02-1-0004)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
yyama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

Levinson, Nal

 

(By: Moon, C.3.,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Harold Jim (“Jim”)
appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Third
(“circuit court”) filed on August 14, 2002. At trial,
driving without a license in
1999),7 (2) failure to

Circuit!
Jim was found guilty of (1)
violation of HRS § 286-102(a) (Supp.
possess no-fault motor vehicle insurance coverage in violation of

HRS § 431:10C-104(a) (Supp. 1997),? (3) failure to display state~

1 the Honorable Riki May Amano presided.

+ nas § 286-102(a) (Supp. 1999) (the version of the statute that was
in effect at the time the prosecution's complaint was filed) provides that
1p0 person, + one who
holds an instruction permit under section 286-110, one who holds a
Connercial driver's license issued under section 206-239, or =
Sonmercial driver's license instruction permit ieaued under
Section 286-236, shall operate any category cf motor vehicles
listed in this Section without first being appropriately examined
and duly licensed asa qualified driver of that category of moter

 

 

venicles.

(emphasis added.)
>was § 431:10c~104(a) provides in pertinent part:

= + no person shall operate or use a motor vehicle upon
any public street, road, or highway of this State at any tine
nless such motor vehicie is insured at ail times under a motor
venicle insurance policy.

 

 
‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

issued motor vehicle nunber plates under HRS § 249-7(b) (1993),
and (4) failure to possess and exhibit a motor vehicle
certificate of registration under HRS § 286-47(3) (A) (Supp.
1998) .*

On appeal, Jim argues that:

(1) The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii's case (Plaintiff-Appellee is
hereafter referred to as “the prosecution”), insofar as the State
of Hawai‘ (via, inter alia, the prosecution) breached its
trustee obligation to Jim, a native Hawaiian and therefore a
beneficiary of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, by arresting
Jim and applying Hawai‘ state law against him while Jim was

 

returning to Hawaiian homestead land:
(2) there was no substantial evidence on the record to

establish that Jim was driving without a license in violation of

HRS § 286-102(a), inasmuch as there was no substantial evidence

‘uns $ 249-7(b) provides in pertinent part

Upon the issuance of a new series of number plates... . (tihe
ouner shall securely fasten che nunber plates on che vehicle, one
fon the front and the other on the rear, at a location provided by
the manufacturer or in the absence of such a location upon the
Dunpers of the vehicle and in conformance with section 291-31, in
such a manner as to prevent the plates from swinging snd at #
ininum of twelve inches from the ground. Nusber plates

fll times be displayed entirely unobscured and be kept
Clean.

 

 

+ aRS $ 266-47(3) A) provides in pertinent part:

Every owner shall keep the certificate of registration within the
yohicle for which it is registered and shall present the sane at
the request Of a police officer, or in the event the

vehicle is a motorcycle, shail carry such certificate in a
Convenient receptacle attached to the vehicle and which shell be
presented at the request of = police officer.

+ insofar as Jim does not “specifically” appeal his HRS § 431:20C-
106 no no-fault insurance and IRS § 286-47(3) (A) no certificate of
registration convictions, thelr affirnance or reversal therefore hinges on the
Fesolution of the jurisdiction iseve, see Anica.

2
*#* NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

to disprove that Jim failed to qualify under one or more of the
HRS § 266-105 (Supp. 1997)? exemptions to the HRS § 286-102 (a)
atatutes

(3) the circuit court's jury instructions as to the
HRS § 286-102 driving without a license charge were
“prejudicially insufficient and misleading”;

(4) the circuit court erred in granting the
prosecution's motion to impose a one-year imprisonment sentence
upon Jim pursuant to HRS § 286-136(b)* on account of his three
prior HRS § 286-102 no driver's license convictions, inasmuch as

> ns § 286-105 provides in pertinent pert:

‘the following persons are exempt from Licens

 

(2) Any person while driving or operating a motor vehicle in the
Setvice br employ of any branch or agency of the federal
Government provided that the person has received a license or
Reteie from the branch or agency to operate and drive the motor
Senicle;

 

(3) Any person who 42 at least eighteen years of age and who has
fn’ the person's possession @ valia driver's license to drive the
Edeegories of motor vehicles listed in section 286-102(D), except
Section 286-102(b) (4), that is equivalent to a driver's license
TSsued in this Seate Sut was issued to the person in another st
of the United States, the Commonsealtn of Puerto Rico, United
States Virgin Islands, Anerican Samoa, Guan, a province of the
Dominion of Canada, ef the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Telands for that category of motor vehicle which the person is
operating.

 

 

 

+ aRS § 206-136(b) reads in pertinent part

Any person who is convicted of violating (HRS $6) 286-202,
2eG-i22,, 286-120, 286-151, 286-132, 286"133, oF 286-194 shall be
Subject to's minimum fine of $500 and a naxinum fine of $1,000, or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both,
nore ssLetier he sane ie
‘Hivesvear periad:

(onphases saded.)
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

the prosecution failed to provide the “competent proof” of such
convictions necessary to make Jim “eligible” for enhanced
sentencing; and

(5) no substantial evidence existed to support Jin’s
conviction of failure to display state-issued motor vehicle
number plates under HRS § 249-7(b), in that Jim did not have
State of Hawai'i license plates on the vehicle he was driving at
the time of the traffic stop, such that Jim by definition cannot
be properly convicted of this offense.

‘The prosecution cross-appeals from various adverse
evidentiary and jury instruction rulings.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold as follows:

(1) The State of Hawai'i (in this case, the Hawai'i
County Police Department and the circuit court) clearly possessed
jurisdiction over Jim. We have made clear that (a) the State of
Hawai'i may validly exercise its police powers (i.e., enforce all
laws not significantly affecting Hawaiian home lands) upon
Hawaiian home lands, and (b) by necessary implication, Hawai'i
courts may properly try cases arising from the State's
enforcement of such laws. Kepo‘o v, Watson, 87 Hawai'i 91, 99,
952 P.2d 379, 387 (1998) ("under (State v. Jim, 80 Hawai'i 168,
171-72, 907 P.2d 754, 757-58 (1995)], police power regulations
apply to Hawaiian home lands, and executive officials may enforce
them, as long as these regulations do not significantly affect
the land(]"); see also Kepo'o v. Kane, 106 Hawai"i 270, 291, 103
P.3d 939, 960 (2005) (quoting with approval Kepo‘o v. Watson
analysis of Jim). & fortiori, Jim candidly admits that he was
not on Hawaiian home lands at the time of his traffic stop and
arrest; therefore, Jim's argument must fail. Thus, insofar as
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

gim only appeals his HRS § 431:10C-104 no no-fault insurance
coverage and HRS § 286-47(3) (A) no certificate of registration
convictions on the basis of jurisdiction, these convictions are
affirmed.

(2) The prosecution failed to adduce substantial
evidence to support Jim's conviction under HRS § 286-102.
Initially, we note that the prosecution bore the burden of
disproving, prima facie, that Jim was exempted from licensure
under HRS § 286-105, as evidenced by the prosecution’s own jury
instructions. See also State v. Matautia, @1 Hawai'i 76, 83, 912
P.2d 573, 580 (App. 1996) (listing failure to meet the HRS § 286-
102 statutory exceptions as an element of HRS § 286-102 offense).
After a sedulous review, though we readily find a wealth of
evidence showing that Jim did not possess a valid Hawai'i
driver's license, we cannot find even a scintilla of evidence to
affirmatively disprove that Jim was exempted from licensure under
HRS § 286-105. As the prosecution failed to prove an essential
elenent of the HRS § 286-102 offense, Jim’s HRS $ 286-102
conviction is reversed.

Because Jin’s HRS § 286-102 conviction and sentence
must be reversed on this basis, we do not reach Jim's remaining
points of error as to prejudicially insufficient and/or
misleading jury instructions as to HRS § 286-102 and improperly
enhanced sentencing under HRS § 286-136(b) .

(3) Jim's contention that HRS § 249-7 cannot be used
to charge him with failure to display state license number plates
is meritless. Under HRS § 249-2 (1993), all motor vehicles
(including Jin’s “self-propelled” truck, see HRS § 249-1 (Supp.
1996)) are subject to an annual weight tax which must be paid by
April 1 each year. “Upon receipt of the tax the director of
finance . . . . shall furnish the owner, upon the original
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

registration of the vehicle, two x plates for the v
HRS § 249-7(a) (emphasis added). Thereafter, “{tlhe owner shall.
securely fasten the number plates on the vehicle, one on the
£ront_and the other on the rear, at a location provided by the
manufacturer or. . . . in such a manner as to prevent the plates
from swinging and at a minimum of twelve inches from the ground.”
HRS § 249-7(b). Thus, the number plates statute makes plain that
state license number plates must be properly attached to the

 

vehicle at all times.

Jim's argument that “did not have state-issued plates
0 it would have been impossible for him to improperly display
plates that he never possessed” is clearly flawed. Number plates
are issued to all originally registered cars, see HRS § 249-7(a),
and Jim does not assert that his truck was unregistered or
stolen. Even assuming arquendo that HRS § 249-7 was somehow
ambiguous, under Jim's interpretation of the statute, all
automobile owners could effectively subvert their duty to pay the
annual weight tax simply by removing their license plates. This
is an absurdity which we must reject. “(T]he legislature is
presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be
construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction,
and illogicality.” Zanakis-Pico v, Cutter Dodge, Inc., 98
Hawai'i 309, 316, 47 P.3d 1222, 1229 (citation omitted); see also
HRS § 1-15(3) (1993) (“Where the words of a law are ambiguous .

[elvery construction which leads to an absurdity shall be
rejected.").

When considering the evidence in the strongest light
for the prosecution, Jin’s repeated admissions that he did not
possess state license number plates for his truck constituted
credible evidence of sufficient quality and probative value to

 

enable a person of reasonable caution to find that Jim failed to
‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

display License nunber plates under HRS § 249-7. See State ve
Maldonado, 108 Hawai'i 436, 442, 121 P.3d 901, 907 (2005). Thus,
Jim's HRS § 249-7 conviction is affirmed.

(4) The prosecution's cross-appeal is moot. We first
note that the cross-appeal is plainly moot to the extent that ve
affirm Jim's convictions. State v. Okuda, 71 Haw. 434, 456, 795
P.2d 1, 13 (1990) (noting that because all of the defendant’ s
convictions were affirmed, and that “[nothing is being remanded
for retrial”, the prosecution’s cross-appeal is moot). The only
difference between the situation in Okuda and that of the present
case is that one of Jim's convictions is reversed. The sole
question possibly remaining, then, is whether there is a live
case or controversy arising from a reversal of Jim's HRS § 286~-
102 conviction. The answer is clearly no.

Briefly, the prosecution relevantly argues on cross-
appeal that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying
evidence of Jim's prior driving-related convictions, firat in an
order denying the proposed introduction of such evidence, and
subsequently in an oral order striking said exhibits without
prejudice when the prosecution listed such convictions “for
notice” to Jim in case he “opened the door” during trial. ‘The
cireuit court specifically stated that despite its order to
strike the exhibits, in the event Jim did assert a mistake of law
“or something to that effect, then I think that the prior
convictions would be relevant at that point.” (Emphasis added.)
Yet, the prosecution adnits on cross-appeal that “. . . .such
exhibits vere ved ." (Emphasis added.)
Clearly, the prosecution's arguments are moot inasmuch as the
prosecution never actually proffered the exhibits at trial, but
merely meant for their listing on the exhibit list to serve es
“fair notice” and a warning to Jim. Accordingly, as the
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

prosecution's remaining points of error on cross-appeal are moot,
the entire cross-appeal is moot, there being no real controversy
left to decide. AIG Hawai'i Insurance Co., Inc. v. Bateman, €2
Hawai'i 453, 458-459, 923 P.2d 395, 400-401 (1996). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) Jims HRS § 431:10C~104,
HRS § 286-47(3) (A), and HRS § 249-7 convictions are affirmed, (2)
Jim’s HRS § 286-102 conviction and sentence are reversed, and (3)
the prosecution’s cross-appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai", dune 14, 2006.

On the briefs:

Iw
Jon N. Ikenaga, deputy v

public defender, ,

for Defendant~Appellant / hiaGflamenn

Cross~Appeliee

Harold Unane Jim &

sseise Lt LO
Darien W. L. Ching,
deputy prosecuting’ attorney, aut AC
for Plaintiff-Appellee/ D—
Cross-Appellant.
State of Hawai'i Yancey