Title: State v. Treat
Citation: 680 P.2d 250
Docket Number: 9004
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: April 4, 1984

680 P.2d 250 (1984) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Forrest TREAT, Defendant-Appellee. No. 9004. Supreme Court of Hawaii. April 4, 1984. Tracy A. Hino, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, on the opening brief and Emlyn H. Higa, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, on the reply brief, for plaintiff-appellant. Randal G. Valenciano, Deputy Public Defender, Honolulu, on brief for defendant-appellee. Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. *251 PADGETT, Justice. This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing an indictment for theft in the first degree. The court below held that the use of the words "receive, retain, or dispose of" made the indictment defective. Section 708-830(7) provides: The indictment in question tracked the above definition. From the record, it appears that the appellee formally moved for and obtained a copy of the grand jury transcript before the motion to dismiss was considered. Since all of the elements of the crime of theft in the first degree as defined in HRS §§ 708-831 and 708-830(7) are alleged in the indictment, it is not defective. Moreover, as we stated in State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317, 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983): Since in the present case, as in Robins, the appellee had been supplied with the grand jury transcript which clearly established the details of the crime, he had been fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing the indictment and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.