***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

NO SCWC-30701

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

________________________________________________________________

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

vs.

BRANDY IWALANI C. AVILLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 30701; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-00518)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Acoba, and McKenna, JJ.,

with Circuit Judge Ayabe, assigned by reason of vacancy,

concurring in the result; 

with Recktenwald, C.J., dissenting, with whom Nakayama, J. joins)

Petitioner Brandy Iwalani C. Avilla (“Avilla”) seeks

review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s April 24, 2012

Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its April 9, 2012 Summary

Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First

Circuit’s “Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and

Plea/Judgment” filed on June 9, 2010. The District Court

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-30701

31-JAN-2014

10:10 AM
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

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

the 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 . . . [w]hile

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[.]

adjudged Avilla guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence

of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes

(“HRS”) § 291E-61(a)(1)(2007). 

1

We accepted Avilla’s application for writ of certiorari

and now vacate the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal and remand this case

to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Avilla’s

Complaint without prejudice.

On certiorari, Avilla contends that the ICA order

affirming her conviction constitutes an obvious inconsistency

with the Supreme Court’s April 12, 2012 decision in State v.

Nesmith, 127 Hawai#i 48, 276 P.3d 617. In State v. Nesmith, we

held that 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. State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai#i at 54-55, 276 P.3d

at 623-24. The Complaint against Avilla failed to allege the

mens rea required in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore,

Avilla’s HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to

allege mens rea.

Unlike Nesmith, however, Avilla challenged the

sufficiency of the Complaint for the first time on appeal. This
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

court recently issued a decision in which the sufficiency of a

charge was similarly challenged for the first time on certiorari. 

See State v. Apollonio, 130 Hawai#i 353, 311 P.3d 676. In State

v. Apollonio, the majority of this court held, “a charge that

fails to charge a requisite state of mind cannot be construed

reasonably to state an offense and thus the charge is dismissed

without prejudice because it violates due process.” Id. at 359,

311 P.3d at 682. Avilla’s Complaint failed to charge a requisite

state of mind, and thus, the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal must be

vacated and the charge must be dismissed without prejudice

because it violates due process.

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

is vacated, and this case is remanded to the District Court with

instructions to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 31, 2014.

Trisha Y. Nakamura, /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

for petitioner

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Brian R. Vincent,

for respondent

CONCURRENCE BY CIRCUIT JUDGE AYABE

I concur in the result.

 /s/ Bert I. A y abe