NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000715 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

THAD JARVIS THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

(CRIMINAL NO. 1CPC-20-0001071) 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER 

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.) 

 In this appeal, Defendant-Appellant Thad Jarvis 

Thompson (Thompson) challenges the pre-trial amendment of a 

defective Felony Information on the basis that Hawaiʻi Rules of 

Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7(f)1 conflicts with Hawaii Revised 

1 HRPP Rule 7(f) liberally permits pre-trial amendment of nonindictment charging instruments like the information in this case. HRPP Rule 

7, entitled "Indictment, Information, or Complaint," provides in pertinent 

part: "(f) Amendment. (1) The court may permit a charge other than an 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000715

04-SEP-2024

08:18 AM

Dkt. 64 SO
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2 

Statutes (HRS) § 806-9.2 We conclude that the amendment was 

permissible and affirm. 

 Thompson appeals from the November 16, 2023 "Judgment 

of Conviction and Sentence" (Judgment) entered by the Circuit 

Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court),3 in which Thompson 

was found guilty of Assault in the Second Degree. Thompson 

contends that the Circuit Court erred by "granting the State's 

Motion to Amend the Felony Information because HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) 

and HRS § 806-9 prohibit amendments."4

 Upon careful review of the record and the briefs 

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to 

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve 

Thompson's point of error as follows, and affirm. 

The initial Felony Information in this case stated in 

pertinent part: 

On or about June 21, 2020, in the City and County of 

Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi, THAD JARVIS THOMPSON did 

indictment to be amended at any time before trial commences if substantial 

rights of the defendant are not prejudiced." 

2 HRS § 806-9 (2014), entitled "Information, laws applicable,"

provides that laws applicable to prosecutions by indictments apply "to the 

same extent as near as may be," to prosecutions by informations, as follows: 

All provisions of law applying to prosecutions upon 

indictments, to writs and process therein, and the issuing 

and service thereof, to motions, pleadings, trials, and 

punishments, or the passing or execution of any sentence, 

and to all proceedings in cases of indictment, whether in 

the court of original or appellate jurisdiction, shall in 

the same manner and to the same extent as near as may be, 

apply to information and all prosecutions and proceedings 

thereon. 

(Emphases added.)

3 The Honorable Judge Kevin A. Souza presided. 

4 In light of our disposition that the amendment was permissible, 

we need not address Thompson's additional contention that the motion to 

dismiss the defective initial information was erroneously denied. 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3 

intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause substantial 

bodily injury to [Complaining Witness (CW)], thereby 

committing the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, in 

violation of Section 707-71l(l)(a) of the [HRS]. 

Thompson filed a "Motion to Dismiss Based Upon a Defective 

Charge" (Motion to Dismiss), arguing that "the charge [was] 

defective as the State failed to provide notice as to the 

particulars of the element of 'substantial bodily injury.'" 

Citing State v. Jardine, 151 Hawaiʻi 96, 508 P.3d 1182 (2022),5

Thompson asserted that "the State should include a 'to wit' 

clause identifying the injuries suffered in charges alleging 

defendant had caused substantial bodily injury[.]" The State 

filed an opposition conceding the defect, but argued it was not 

fatal because the Felony Information "together with the 

discovery provided to [Thompson], sufficiently inform[ed] 

[Thompson] of the nature and cause of the accusation against 

him." 

 On November 7, 2022, while the hearing on Thompson's 

Motion to Dismiss was pending, the State filed a "Motion to 

Amend Felony Information" (Motion to Amend Information) pursuant 

to HRPP Rule 7(f), requesting to amend the Felony Information by 

adding the following underlined language: 

On or about June 21, 2020, in the City and County of 

Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi, THAD JARVIS THOMPSON did 

intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause substantial 

bodily injury, to wit, a nasal bone fracture, to [CW], 

thereby committing the offense of Assault in the Second 

5 In Jardine, the defendant was charged with second-degree assault, 

in which the charging document did not define "substantial bodily injury" and 

did not specify the injury that the complainant suffered. 151 Hawaiʻi at 97-

98, 508 P.3d at 1183-84. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that the State was 

required to include the statutory definition of "substantial bodily injury"; 

and that because "substantial bodily injury" was a generic term, the State 

was required to "identify the species of injury by alleging that the alleged 

substantial bodily injury consisted of 'a bone fracture' and 'a serious 

concussion' in order to provide sufficient notice." Id. at 100-01, 508 P.3d 

at 1186-87 (citation omitted). 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4 

Degree, in violation of Section 707-711(1)(a) of the [HRS]. 

Pursuant to Section 707-700 of the [HRS], "substantial 

bodily injury" means bodily injury which causes: (1) a 

major avulsion, laceration, or penetration of the skin; (2) 

a burn of at least second degree severity; (3) a bone 

fracture; (4) a serious concussion; or (5) a tearing, 

rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or 

other internal organs. 

The proposed amendment appeared to address the Jardine defect 

that Thompson raised in the Motion to Dismiss. Thompson filed 

an opposition to the Motion to Amend Information, presenting the 

same arguments he advances in this appeal: that HRPP Rule 

7(f)(1) does not permit the amendment of an information because 

it only allows "a charge other than an indictment" to be amended 

before trial; and an information and indictment must be treated 

the same pursuant to HRS § 806-9. 

 On December 5, 2022, a hearing was held on both the 

Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Amend Information. 

 On December 14, 2022, the Circuit Court filed its 

order denying the Motion to Dismiss, and its "Findings of Facts 

[sic], Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting State's Motion to 

Amend Felony Information" (Order Granting Motion to Amend 

Information). In the Order Granting Motion to Amend 

Information, the Circuit Court concluded that: HRPP Rule 7(f) 

permitted the amendment of a "'charge other than an indictment 

to be amended at any time before trial commences if substantial 

rights of the defendant are not prejudiced'"; that HRS § 806-9 

"does not bar the State from amending a Felony Information"; and 

that there was "no legitimate basis to [Thompson's] claim that 

the State's proposed amendment of the Felony Information 

prejudice[d] his substantial rights." 

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5 

 Following a jury trial on May 9 and 10, 2023, 

Thompson was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to five 

years of imprisonment. Thompson timely appealed the 

Judgment. 

 "When interpreting rules promulgated by the court, 

principles of statutory construction apply." State v. 

Michaeledes, 152 Hawaiʻi 217, 220, 524 P.3d 1241, 1244 (2023) 

(citation omitted). "The interpretation of a statute 

or court rule is a question of law which this court 

reviews de novo." State v. James, 153 Hawaiʻi 503, 510, 541 P.3d 

1266, 1273 (2024) (cleaned up). "[T]he fundamental starting 

point for statutory interpretation is the language of the 

statute itself." Id. (citation omitted). "[W]here the 

statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to 

give effect to its plain and obvious meaning." Id. (citation 

omitted).

 HRS § 806-9 does not conflict with HRPP Rule 7(f)(1), 

 and does not require that informations be treated 

 exactly the same as indictments in all respects.6

 Thompson argues the amendment to the information was 

improper because although HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) allows for "a charge 

other than an indictment" to be amended before trial, HRS § 806-

9 "provides that all provisions of law applying to indictments 

shall apply to informations." The State argues that the "plain 

meaning of HRS § 806-9 does not require the law on informations 

to be exactly the same as for indictments in all respects." The 

State's argument has merit.

6 Because we hold that HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) and HRS § 806-9 do not 

conflict, we do not address Thompson's argument premised on the existence of 

a conflict——urging us to apply "State v. Obrero and the Rule of Lenity" to 

conclude that "HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) exempts felony informations, like 

indictments, from being amended." 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6 

 HRS § 806-9 provides that "[a]ll provisions of law 

applying to prosecutions [by] indictments, . . . shall in the 

same manner and to the same extent as near as may be, apply to 

information and all prosecutions and proceedings thereon." 

(Emphasis added.) The plain language of the statute, "as near 

as may be," clearly recognizes that there are situations where 

the law of indictments will not apply to informations. See 

James, 153 Hawaiʻi at 510, 541 P.3d at 1273. Thus, HRS § 806-9 

does not require that an information be treated exactly the same

as an indictment in all respects, and explicitly recognizes that 

there may be situations where the law of indictments cannot be 

applied in the exact same manner to informations, and the "as 

near as may be" language covers those situations. Thus, the 

Circuit Court did not err in concluding that HRS § 806-9 "does 

not bar the State from amending a Felony Information." See id. 

 The language of HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) is plain and 

 unambiguous, and permits the pre-trial amendment of an 

 information, where the defense is not prejudiced. 

 Thompson argues that even if HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) permits 

the amendment of felony informations, the Amended Felony 

Information prejudiced his substantial rights because the State 

did not initially "comply with the constitutional requirements 

as demanded in Jardine." The State argues that the "plain 

meaning of HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) clearly allows for informations to 

be amended"; that "[n]umerous Hawaiʻi cases have also allowed 

amendment of charging documents, including felony informations, 

if the charges are deficient"; and that Thompson's substantial 

rights were not violated where he "had more than enough time to 

prepare for a trial based on the amended charge." The State's 

argument has merit. 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7 

 HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) plainly and unambiguously "permit[s] 

a change other than an indictment to be amended at any time 

before trial commences if substantial rights of the defendant 

are not prejudiced." See James, 153 Hawaiʻi at 510, 541 P.3d at 

1273; see also State v. Alcos, No. CAAP-16-0000842, 2017 WL 

4325871, at *1, *4-5 (Sept. 29, 2017) (SDO) (holding that the 

felony information was deficient, but that the State should be 

given an opportunity to amend the felony information pursuant to 

HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) on remand). HRPP Rule 7(f)(1)'s sole 

exception to allowing liberal pre-trial amendment of charging 

instruments is where a grand jury indictment is at issue. This 

makes sense as "an indictment is an action of the grand jury and 

not subject to change by either the court or prosecution, except 

to correct formalistic errors[.]" Barbara E. Bergman et al., 

Wharton's Criminal Procedure § 5:15 (14th ed. 2002). In State 

v. Kam, we explained that: "Where the State's pre-trial 

amendment of a charge in a complaint does not prejudice a 

defendant's substantial rights, there seems to be little 

justification for denying the amendment and good reasons for 

granting it. Permitting the amendment prevents delay, avoids 

inconvenience to the parties, and conserves judicial resources." 

134 Hawaiʻi 280, 286-87, 339 P.3d 1081, 1087-88 (App. 2014), 

aff'd, No. SCWC-12-0000897, 2016 WL 770253 (Haw. Feb. 25, 2016) 

(SDO). 

 Here, the Circuit Court granted the Motion to Amend 

Information by a December 14, 2022 order, approximately five 

months before the May 2023 trial. Thompson presents no argument 

explaining how his substantial rights were prejudiced where the 

amendment occurred several months before trial. The Circuit 

Court did not err by granting the Motion to Amend Information 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8 

under HRPP Rule 7(f)(1). See James, 153 Hawaiʻi at 510, 541 P.3d 

at 1273. 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the November 16, 

2023 "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence" entered by the Circuit 

Court of the First Circuit. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, September 4, 2024. 

On the briefs:

Emmanuel G. Guerrero, 

for Defendant-Appellant. 

Robert T. Nakatsuji, 

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 

for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka 

Presiding Judge 

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone 

Associate Judge 

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen 

Associate Judge