***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

NO. SCWC-10-0000243

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

WILLIAM A. DANIELS, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. CAAP-10-0000243; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-01712)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.; 

with Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting)

Petitioner William A. Daniels, Jr. (“Daniels”) seeks

review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s November 10, 2011

Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its October 24, 2011

Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of

the First Circuit’s December 8, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The

District Court adjudged Daniels guilty of Operating a Vehicle

Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-10-0000243

30-APR-2012

08:48 AM
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

HRS § 291E-61(a) provided, at the time of the alleged offense, the 1

following:

A 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:

 (1) While under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to

impair the person’s normal mental faculties or ability to care for the

person and guard against casualty; 

 (2) While under the influence of any drug that impairs the person’s

ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner;

 (3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of

breath; or

(4) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters or

cubic centimeters of blood.

 The other questions presented in Daniels’ application are without 2

merit.

2

Revised Statutes (“HRS”) §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3)(2007). We 1

accepted Daniels’ application for writ of certiorari and now

affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal.

On certiorari, Daniels contends that the ICA gravely

erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in either an

HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) or an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge. In State 2

v. Nesmith, we recently held that (1) mens rea must be alleged in

an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of

the nature and cause of the accusation; and (2) 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). Accordingly, the ICA gravely

erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in an HRS 
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

3

§ 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Daniels’ HRS § 291E-61(a)(1)

charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea.

However, the District Court adjudged Daniels guilty of

violating both HRS §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). Subsections

(a)(1) and (a)(3) can each serve as the basis for a conviction

under HRS § 291E-61. See State v. Grindles, 70 Haw. 528, 530-31,

777 P.2d 1187, 1189-90 (1989); State v. Caleb, 79 Hawai#i 336,

339, 902 P.2d 971, 974 (1995); State v. Mezurashi, 77 Hawai#i 94,

98, 881 P.2d 1240, 1244 (1994). Insofar as the HRS § 291E61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Daniels does not

challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, his

conviction still stands. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal

is affirmed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 30, 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 Delanie D. Prescott-Tate, /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

for respondent/plaintiffappellee