Title: State v. Yonaha
Citation: 723 P.2d 185
Docket Number: 11043
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: August 7, 1986

723 P.2d 185 (1986) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James K. YONAHA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 11043. Supreme Court of Hawaii. August 7, 1986. Edward K. Harada, Deputy Public Defender, on briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant. Robert F. Murashige, Deputy Pros. Atty., on brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee. Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. PADGETT, Justice. This is an appeal from a conviction for resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle in violation of HRS § 710-1027. The oral charge read: Appellant's counsel moved to dismiss the charge because the element of intent was missing. Section 710-1027(1) reads: Unlike State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 660 P.2d 39 (1983), and State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 680 P.2d 250 (1984), the charge in this case did not track the statute. It omitted *186 the element of intent which is expressly included in the statute. Under our holdings in State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw. 279, 567 P.2d 1242 (1977), and State v. Faulkner, 61 Haw. 177, 599 P.2d 285 (1979), the charge was fatally defective for failure to allege a necessary element. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed.