Source: http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180126_0000061.HI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-09-22 22:18:15
Document Index: 716833162

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 29', '§ 291', '§ 1', '§ 286', '§ 29', '§ 286', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 291', '§ 291', '§ 2', '§ 291']

James Manjiro Yuda James S. Tabe Deputy Public Defenders for Defendant-Appellant
Richard K. Minatoya Deputy Prosecuting Attorney County of Maui for Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (State) charged Defendant-Appellant Marcia D. Wilson (Wilson) with: (1) Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 29lE-6l(a) (1) (2007) and 29lE-6l(b) (Supp. 2014), -[1] and (2) Refusal to Submit to a Breath, Blood, or Urine Test (Refusal to Submit to Testing), in violation of HRS § 291E-68 (Supp. 2014) .[2] After a bench trial, Wilson was found guilty as charged.
1. Any person who operates a vehicle upon a public way, street, road or highway . . . shall be deemed to have given consent to a test or tests for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration ... of the person's breath [or] blood . . . ."
Wilson told Officer Hattori that she was "not taking any tests[, ]" and she signed the MPD Form 332 after checking the box signifying that she "refuse[d] to take a breath and/or blood test" for alcohol concentration.
In 1967, the Hawai'i Legislature enacted an implied consent statute to reduce deaths, injuries, and damages arising out of highway traffic accidents. See 1967 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 214, at § 1. While the statutory scheme has evolved over time, its underlying premise has remained the same, that a person who operates a motor vehicle on the State's public roads "shall be deemed" to have given consent to testing for evidence of impairment. See HRS § 286-151 (1968); HRS § 29lE-ll(a) (2007). The original statute authorized testing of a driver's breath or blood to determine the alcoholic content of the driver's blood. HRS § 286-151 (1986). Subsequent amendments to the statutory scheme expanded the scope of testing to breath, blood, or urine to determine the alcohol concentration or drug content of the driver's breath, blood, or urine, as applicable. HRS § 29lE-ll(a) (2007). A driver whose alcohol concentration in breath or blood exceeds the legal limit is subject to criminal liability for OVUII without the State having to prove at trial that the driver was actually impaired. See HRS § 29lE-6l(a) (3) (2007).[5]
Prior to 2011, a person who refused to submit to testing, as required by the implied consent statutory scheme, was subject only to civil administrative sanctions, including the revocation of his or her driver's license and referral for substance abuse assessment and treatment. See HRS §§ 291E-41, 291E-65 (2007). However, effective January 1, 2011, the Legislature enacted HRS § 291E-68, which imposed criminal sanctions for the refusal to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test. 2010 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 166, §§ 2, 26, at 398, 415. The version of HRS § 291E-68 applicable to Wilson's case stated: "Except as provided in section 291E-65, refusal to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test as required by part II is a petty misdemeanor."[6]