Title: State v. Toyomura
Citation: 904 P.2d 893
Docket Number: 17845
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: October 11, 1995

904 P.2d 893 (1995) 80 Hawai`i 8 STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry Hidenori TOYOMURA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 17973. Supreme Court of Hawai`i. October 11, 1995. *895 Samuel P. King, Jr., on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant Harry Hidenori Toyomura. Charlotte J. Duarte, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai`i. Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ. LEVINSON, Justice. The defendant-appellant Harry Hidenori Toyomura was convicted in the district court of the first circuit of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI), in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-4(a)(1) (1993).[1] On appeal, Toyomura urges that the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) in denying his motion to dismiss the charge against him "on Double Jeopardy grounds"; and (2) in permitting a police officer to render opinions as to whether Toyomura had (a) failed his field sobriety test (FST), (b) exhibited a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of .10 percent, and (c) been intoxicated at the time of his arrest. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Toyomura was arrested for DUI after colliding with another vehicle on the H-1 freeway on the evening of October 21, 1993. Subsequently, his driver's license was revoked *896 by the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO), pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 286, Part XIV (1993) (Administrative Revocation Program).[2] Toyomura has sought judicial review of his administrative license revocation, see HRS § 286-260 (1993), and his appeal from the adverse decision of the district court is currently pending in this court under docket number 17845.[3] In the meantime, the State of Hawai`i (the prosecution) initiated proceedings to prosecute Toyomura criminally for DUI, pursuant to HRS § 291-4(a).[4] On March 3, 1994, immediately prior to the commencement of his bench trial, Toyomura orally moved to dismiss the DUI charge against him on the ground that, as a prosecution "successive" to his administrative license revocation, it was barred by the constitutional right against double jeopardy.[5] Specifically, Toyomura argued that his previous administrative license revocation amounted to a "quasi criminal type proceeding" that foreclosed any subsequent criminal prosecution based on the same DUI offense. The trial court denied Toyomura's motion on the basis that "what the [administrative license revocation process] does is not punishment. It merely removes the unsafe driver from the highway by not giving him his license. Whereas ..., in the event that the [prosecution] is successful [in the DUI prosecution], I can punish [Toyomura]." The case then proceeded to trial. The first of the prosecution's three witnesses, Mary Williams, testified on direct examination that the family Saab automobile which her husband was driving and in which she, her two children, and her father-in-law were passengerswas struck by Toyomura's pickup truck on the H-1 freeway, resulting in an accident on the evening of October 21, 1993. She explained that traffic congestion had forced them to come to a halt when, "all of a sudden, bam. I looked up at my husband and said, `What happened?' And, he said we were hit, and he was looking at his rear view mirror. So, I turned around and looked, and I saw Mr. Toyomura in his truck." Williams's husband then exited the Saab, spoke with Toyomura, and returned to move the Saab out of traffic. Williams's husband parked near a concrete barrier, which was two and a half to three feet in height, and the family exited the Saab, climbed over the barrier to a grassy and presumably safer area, and waited for the police to arrive. Upon the arrival of the police, who parked their vehicle behind Toyomura's truck, the Williamses retraversed the concrete barrier to speak to the police. Toyomura, who had apparently joined the Williamses in the grassy area, likewise attempted *897 to climb over the barrier, but "fell over" it. Toyomura opted not to cross-examine Williams. The prosecution's second witness, Honolulu Police Officer Arnold Samala, testified on direct examination that, when he arrived at the accident scene, he "saw two cars pulled over to the side and people ... standing on the other side of the barrier. And, as they approached me, ... I saw [Toyomura] climb over the barrier and he fellfell to the ground." Officer Samala asked Toyomura for proof of auto insurance, Toyomura's driver's license, and the motor vehicle registration for his vehicle. Toyomura walked to his vehicle, retrieved the papers from the glove compartment, returned, and handed them over to Officer Samala. Officer Samala observed that: (1) Toyomura was unsteady on his feet; (2) an odor of alcohol emanated from Toyomura's mouth and chin; and (3) when he was moving Toyomura's vehicle further to the side of the freeway, there was a discernible odor of alcohol in the interior. On cross-examination, Officer Samala acknowledged that he had been dispatched to the scene after the accident had occurred and had therefore not witnessed it. Accordingly, he had no opportunity to observe the manner in which the drivers had operated their respective vehicles. The prosecution's third witness, Honolulu Police Officer Craig Fujihara, who had accompanied Officer Samala to the accident scene, testified on direct examination that, from his police vehicle, he witnessed Toyomura "flip[ ] head-over-heels over [the] concrete barrier," landing on his side. Toyomura "then got up rather unsteadily, and ... walked over to a pickup truck," the side of which "he held on to ... for support." Officer Fujihara exited his vehicle, approached Toyomura, and "asked him if he was okay. He said yes." Officer Fujihara, who accompanied Toyomura while the latter complied with Officer Samala's request that he retrieve his identification papers from the pick-up truck, was able to observe that: (1) Toyomura's "eyes were bloodshot"; (2) there was "a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage on [Toyomura's] breath"; and (3) Toyomura "appeared to be unsteady on his feet," inasmuch as he (a) "couldn't stand," (b) "was swaying from side to side," and (c) "had to hold on to objects for support, such as the side of the truck, the door." Officer Fujihara testified that he next instructed Officer Samala to move Toyomura's truck off the roadway to a safer place and that he did the same with the police vehicle. Returning to the accident scene, Officer Fujihara asked Toyomura if he would be willing to take a field sobriety test (FST), to which Toyomura agreed. The following colloquy ensued between the deputy prosecuting attorney (DPA) and Officer Fujihara regarding Fujihara's knowledge of prescribed procedures for administering FSTs: Officer Fujihara testified that he then administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus, "one-leg stand," and "walk-and-turn" phases of the FST, but before he could describe the adequacy of Toyomura's performance of the horizontal gaze nystagmus phase, Toyomura objected,[7] and the trial court instructed the prosecution to "go on to the next test." The DPA asked Officer Fujihara to describe the instructions that he gave Toyomura regarding the one-leg stand procedure, but the defense again objected, inter alia, on the ground that the prosecution had not laid the proper foundation by first calling an expert to testify as to the significance of that phase of the FST.[8] Citing State v. Nishi, 9 Haw. App. 516, 852 P.2d 476 (1993), and State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 687 P.2d 544 (1984), the trial court ruled that (Emphases added.) Officer Fujihara was then permitted to testify regarding his administration of the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn procedures and Toyomura's performance of them. With respect to the one-leg stand procedure, Officer Fujihara testified that he instructed Toyomura to "raise either his right or his left leg, keeping his leg approximately six to twelve inches above the ground, keeping the knee locked, and ... put[ting] his hands down by his sides[,]" and to count off thirty seconds. After nine seconds, Toyomura fell forward, put down his leg, and said, "I cannot do it any more." Officer Fujihara characterized Toyomura's performance as "unbalanced," and remarked that Toyomura's "ability to perform the test was very poor."[9] Regarding the walk-and-turn procedure, Officer Fujihara instructed Toyomura to "place his right foot in front of his left, his arms down by his sides, and remain there until [Officer Fujihara] gave him instructions to proceed with the test," but Toyomura "could not hold that position." Under the circumstances, Officer Fujihara therefore instructed Toyomura to Toyomura attempted the walk-and-turn procedure, and the officer observed him take thirteen steps, of which four were "off to the side," and, as to the last four, "there was no heel to toe." When it came to the "pivot," Toyomura "just stopped [and] turned around." On the "walk back," Officer Fujihara observed that three of Toyomura's steps were "off to the side again." In sum, Officer Fujihara opined that Toyomura's balance and coordination during the walk-and-turn procedure were "not very good at all."[10] *899 At this point, Officer Fujihara testified that he placed Toyomura under arrest for DUI, and the following interchange transpired between the parties: (Emphases added.) Following the close of the evidence and final argument by the parties, the trial court rendered its decision in relevant part as follows: The trial court proceeded to sentence Toyomura as follows: (Emphasis added.) Toyomura filed a timely notice of appeal. The question whether the district court should have dismissed the DUI charge against Toyomura on double jeopardy grounds is a question of constitutional law that we review under the right/wrong standard of review. State v. Higa, 79 Hawai`i 1, 3, 897 P.2d 928, 930 (1995); State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i 127, 137, 890 P.2d 1167, 1177 (1995). Relying on United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S. Ct. 1892, 104 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1989), and Dow v. Circuit Court, 995 F.2d 922 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1051, 127 L. Ed. 2d 372 (1994), Toyomura makes the following argument: Toyomura's opening brief at 5-7 (emphases added). As we will demonstrate infra, the logic of Toyomura's entire argument is specious for at least three reasons. In Higa, supra, the defendant (Higa) appealed his DUI conviction and sentence, inter alia, on the ground that his prior administrative license revocation proceeding "barred a subsequent criminal prosecution under the principles of double jeopardy." 79 Hawai`i at 2-3, 897 P.2d at 929-30. Unlike the present matter, Higa's ADLRO proceeding culminated in his license revocation being reversed on the ground that Higa had requested, but had not been given, a blood alcohol test, with the result that there had been insufficient evidence to sustain the initial revocation. Id. at 3 &amp; n. 2, 897 P.2d at 930 &amp; n. 2. See HRS §§ 286-259(e) and (i) (1993). Thus, Higa argued that, inasmuch as his administrative hearing before the ADLRO had ended in his favor, any subsequent criminal prosecution for DUI was constitutionally barred. We disagreed and affirmed Higa's DUI conviction, pursuant to the following analysis: Loui, 78 Hawai`i at 27, 889 P.2d at 711 (citation omitted). As in Loui, Halper does not apply to the present case because "we are not analyzing the constitutionality of any monetary sanctions designed to compensate the government for losses it sustained as a result of [the defendant's] criminal actions." Loui, 78 Hawai`i at 27, 889 P.2d at 711. Therefore, we must examine, as we did in Loui, the broader principles enunciated in Halper to determine whether the civil penalty sought in an ADLRO proceeding constitutes a "second punishment" violative of double jeopardy. See Halper, 490 U.S. at 448, 109 S. Ct. at 1901, ("punishment serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence"). Revocation of an individual's driver's license appears to have a two-fold purpose. First, the procedure protects the public interest by removing potentially threatening drivers from our state's roadways; and, second, between the time offending drivers are cited and their criminal adjudication, the procedure precludes such drivers from continuing to drive. See Kernan [v. Tanaka], 75 Haw. [1,] 29, 856 P.2d [1207,] 1221, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1070, 127 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1994) ("In DUI cases, public safety is the main governmental concern.") As the legislature itself has stated: Higa, 79 Hawai`i at 5-7, 897 P.2d at 932-34 (footnotes omitted) (some brackets in original). Unlike Higa, Toyomura implicitly claims only the third double jeopardy protection enumerated in Lessary and Halper, namely, the protection against "multiple punishments for the same offense."[12] But, as in *903 Higa, Toyomura can derive no benefit from the Halper decision. First, the purely potential[13] costs of substance abuse assessment and treatment that Toyomura may face by virtue of his administrative license revocation, see supra note 11, in no way entail "any monetary sanctions designed to compensate the government for losses it sustained as a result of [his] criminal actions." Higa, 79 Hawai`i at 6, 897 P.2d at 933; Loui, 78 Hawai`i at 27, 889 P.2d at 711. Second, the Administrative Revocation Program, including the ADLRO hearing mechanism, is not "punitive" by its very nature, but rather "serve[s] [the] legitimate, nonpunitive, and purely remedial functions" of "safeguard[ing] the public and reduc[ing] traffic fatalities caused by those driving while under the influence of alcohol." Higa, 79 Hawai`i at 6-7, 897 P.2d at 933-34.[14] And therefore, third, Toyomura's subjective perception of the punitive character of the Administrative Revocation Program is immaterial, inasmuch "as even remedial sanctions carry `the sting of punishment.'" Id. at 6, 897 P.2d at 933; Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at ___ n. 14, 114 S. Ct. at 1945 n. 14. As we have indicated, Toyomura claims that, by operation of HRS § 286-261(d)[15], he was "required to be examined by a certified substance abuse counselor" (emphasis added), as a result of which he "would be required to obtain `treatment'" (emphasis added), and that he would be "required to pay for [the costs of such] examination and treatment" (emphasis added). To our knowledge, Toyomura's characterization of HRS § 286-261(d) accords us our first opportunity to interpret the section's legal effect. In doing so, Housing Finance and Development Corp. v. Castle, 79 Hawai`i 64, 76-77, 898 P.2d 576, 588-89 (1995) (brackets in original). We begin our construction of HRS § 286-261(d) by addressing its first sentence "[w]henever a [driver's] license is administratively revoked under [the Administrative Revocation Program], the offender shall be referred to a certified substance abuse counselor for an assessment of the offender's alcohol abuse or dependence and the need for treatment." (Emphases added.) In essence, the question is whether the statutory phrase "shall be referred" is mandatory or merely directory, bearing in mind that, in either event, it is only for "an assessment" of possible alcohol abuse or dependence and the possible need for treatmenti.e., a "needs assessment"that "the offender shall be referred." The word "referred" is neither defined in HRS § 286-251 (1993), which is the "definitions" section of the Administrative Revocation Program, nor anywhere else in the statutory scheme. Thus, we must determine whether its meaning is "plain and obvious." The verb to "refer" is defined both transitively and intransitively. The transitive definition includes "to direct for information or anything required" (emphasis added), as in "He referred me to books on astrology," and "to hand over or submit for information, consideration, decision, etc.," as in "to refer the argument to arbitration." Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 1205 (1989). The former definition may connote either a mandatory or directory quality, whereas the latter would seem to be mandatory. The intransitive definition includes "to direct anyone for information, esp[ecially] about one's character, abilities, etc." (emphasis added), as in "to refer to a former employer for a recommendation," and "to have recourse or resort; turn, as for aid or information," as in "to refer to one's notes." Id. The former of these definitions could potentially be either mandatory or directory, while the latter would appear to be purely discretionary. Accordingly, insofar as it is "capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed people in two or more different senses," the meaning of the term "referred" is not "plain and obvious," but, rather, is ambiguous. With regard to the term "shall," we have long subscribed to the view that Jack Endo Elec., Inc. v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 59 Haw. 612, 616-17, 585 P.2d 1265, 1269 (1978) (citations, internal quotation marks, and ellipsis points omitted). See also Perry v. Planning Comm'n of County of Hawai`i, 62 Haw. 666, 677, 619 P.2d 95, 103 (1980) (ruling that word "shall" may be merely directory when no advantage is lost, when no right is destroyed, or when no benefit is sacrificed, either to the public or to the individual). As we have noted, the global purposes of the Administrative Revocation Program are "to safeguard the public and reduce traffic fatalities caused by those driving while under the influence of alcohol" by "removing potentially threatening drivers from our state's roadways" and by "preclud[ing] such drivers from continuing to drive" between the time they are cited and their criminal adjudication. Higa, 79 Hawai`i at 6, 897 P.2d at 933; Kernan, 75 Haw. at 29, 856 P.2d at 1221. See also Hse.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 137, in 1990 House Journal, at 824 ("The purpose of this bill is to provide for the public safety by establishing a quick, administrative procedure for revoking the licenses of drunk drivers while they are awaiting trial on criminal DUI charges under [HRS § ]291-4[.]"); Sen.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 137, in 1990 Senate Journal, at 825 (id.); Hse. Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 1191, in 1989 House Journal, at 1269 ("The purpose of this bill is to provide for the prompt revocation of the driver's license of a person who a police officer has probable cause to believe has been driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor."); Hse.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 1071, in 1989 House Journal, at 1229 (id.); Sen. Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 355, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 955 ("The purpose of this bill is to provide for a mandatory revocation of a driver's license of a person, who the police has [sic] probable cause to believe ... was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor."); Sen.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 670, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 1062 ("The purpose of this bill is to provide for an administrative revocation of a person's license if there is probable cause to believe that the person was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI)."). On the other hand, we must read the provisions of HRS § 286-261(d), which deals with a consequence of administrative revocation, "in the context of the entire [Administrative Revocation Program] and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose." Castle, 79 Hawai`i at 77, 898 P.2d at 589. Accordingly, we construe HRS § 286-261(d) in pari materia with HRS § 286-265 (1993), which deals with "eligibility for relicensing." See supra note 16. HRS § 286-265 provides: (Emphasis added and bold in original.) By its plain language, HRS § 286-265 establishes the statutory mechanism for the *906 relicensing of a person who has been subject to the Administrative Revocation Program. One prerequisite to relicensing is "compliance with all conditions imposed" by the ADLRO. HRS § 286-265(1). The legislative history underlying the Administrative Revocation Program leaves no doubt that compliance with the needs assessment referral and completion of any treatment ordered pursuant to HRS § 286-261(d) are conditions subsumed within HRS § 286-265(1). See Hse.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 137, in 1990 House Journal, at 825 ("[C]onditions that may be imposed include alcohol counseling and treatment.... After a revocation period is over, the person, in order to ever drive again in [Hawai`i], will have to prove that all conditions of the revocation have been met[.]"); Sen.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 137, in 1990 Senate Journal, at 826 (id.); Sen.Stand Comm.Rep. No. 670, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 1063 ("[A] person whose license is revoked administratively... may reapply ... for a license upon the expiration of the revocation period and upon compliance with the requirement that a person whose license is revoked obtain and remain in treatment for substance abuse[.]"). This court has recognized that Kernan, 75 Haw. at 21-22, 856 P.2d at 1218 (footnote omitted). The legislative history underlying the Administrative Revocation Program is in accord. See Hse. Conf.Comm.Rep No. 137, in 1990 House Journal, at 825 ("Revocation is not a suspension; it is an absolute removal of a person's privilege to drive in this State[.]"); Sen. Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 137, in 1990 Senate Journal, at 826 (id.); Sen.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 670, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 1062 ("In the past[,] there ha[ve] been concerns expressed over similar bills that insufficient due process protections were provided for drivers facing revocation proceedings. Your Committee finds that this bill provides a number of protections to the driver[.]"). Because the "privilege" of driving, once conferred, ripens into a constitutionally protected property interest, thereby entitling the driver to procedural due process, see Kernan, 75 Haw. at 22-24, 856 P.2d at 1218-19, before his or her license may be revoked, it therefore follows that failure of the ADLRO to "refer" an offender to a certified substance abuse counselor for a needs assessment, as provided in HRS § 286-261(d), would, at the very least, result in a "sacrifice" of a statutory "benefit," see Perry, 62 Haw. at 677, 619 P.2d at 103, or, put differently, an "injury," see Jack Endo Elec., 59 Haw. at 617, 585 P.2d at 1269, to the offender's constitutionally protected property interest. This is the case because, pursuant to HRS § 286-265(1), the offender's eligibility for relicensing is conditioned, inter alia, upon compliance with the assessment and treatment options enumerated in HRS § 286-261(d). Accordingly, based on the analysis set forth above, we hold that HRS § 286-261(d) mandates that "[w]henever a [driver's] license is administratively revoked under the [Administrative Revocation Program], the offender shall be referred to a certified substance abuse counselor for a [needs] assessment[.]" (Emphasis added.) The question remains, however, whether (as Toyomura contends) an offender, whose driver's license is administratively revoked, is required to submit to the needs assessment or to incur the costs and derive the benefits of the potential treatment for alcohol abuse or dependence for which provision is made in HRS § 286-261(d). In this connection, we note that the purposes of the statutorily authorized assessment and treatment are to decrease the incidence of "death, injury, and untold personal tragedy" caused by DUI and to "assist those in need of counseling to obtain professional help," Hse. *907 Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 1191, in 1989 House Journal, at 1269, in order to insure that an offender's "alcohol problem is under control and that it will be reasonably safe to permit the [offender] to drive a motor vehicle upon the highways" before the offender is permitted to reapply for a driver's license pursuant to HRS § 286-265. Sen.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 670, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 1063. The answer to the question lies in the self-evident fact that, once his or her driver's license is administratively revoked, an offender is under no obligation to apply for the privilege of relicensure. As we have demonstrated, the needs assessment and treatment provisions of HRS § 286-261(d) are essentially remedial; through them, the Administrative Revocation Program seeks to rehabilitate the former offender before issuing him or her a new driver's license, thereby safeguarding the public by reducing the incidence of traffic fatalities, injuries, and other "untold personal tragedy." Although, pursuant to HRS § 286-261(d), the ADLRO has a mandatory duty to refer an offender to a certified substance abuse counselor, the offender has no concurrent, mandatory duty to submit himself or herself to anything. Thus, if an offender wishes to avoid undergoing a needs assessment and any resulting treatment, he or she may simply elect not to comply with a referral order. However, insofar as a counselor's report and recommendations and an offender's compliance therewith are preconditions to relicensure, see HRS § 286-265, the offender will pay a price for his or her election because he or she will be unable to obtain the privilege of a new driver's license. Accordingly, submitting to a needs assessment and successfully completing any ordered treatment for drug abuse or dependence are merely conditions to be met if a former offender wishes to have his or her driving privileges renewed. Inasmuch as HRS § 286-261(d) "requires" Toyomura neither to submit to the needs assessment to which he has been "referred" nor to undergo any treatment for alcohol abuse or dependence, we hold that its application to him, in combination with his DUI conviction and sentence pursuant to HRS § 291-4(a)(1), does not impose "multiple punishments for the same offense" as proscribed by the constitutional right against double jeopardy. As a final matter, Toyomura invokes Dow, supra, in support of his contention that "[b]ecause [he] suffered a punishment in his ADLRO license revocation proceeding, he could not again be subjected to a criminal DUI proceeding that submitted him to possible additional punishment" without violating double jeopardy principles. For the reasons discussed below, Toyomura's reliance on Dow is misplaced. In Dow, the defendant (Dow) was convicted in a Hawai`i state court of DUI and was sentenced, inter alia, to fourteen hours of attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation[17] program. Following his unsuccessful appeal, Dow sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i "on the ground that, in obtaining his conviction, the state had violated the Double Jeopardy Clause." Dow, 995 F.2d at 923.[18] The district court denied Dow's petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain it because the mandatory class attendance to which Dow was sentenced did not amount to a sufficient restraint on his liberty to constitute "custody" within the meaning of the applicable federal statute. Id. at 922. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, reasoning as follows: Id. at 923 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphases added). Although somewhat obscurely articulated in his opening brief, Toyomura's argument seems to be as follows: (1) by virtue of his administrative license revocation, he was required to undergo a needs assessment and possible treatment for alcohol abuse or dependence, the costs of which he would be obliged to incur; (2) these "requirements" were akin to a criminal punishment and, pursuant to Dow, constituted "custody"; (3) "custody" is the functional equivalent of "punishment"; (4) the DUI conviction placed him at risk of "possible additional punishment"; and, therefore, (5) he has been subjected to "multiple punishments for the same offense," in contravention of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. The logic of Toyomura's argument is sheer sophistry, and Dow is completely inapposite. First, the Administrative Revocation Program in general, and HRS § 286-261(d) in particular, did not affirmatively "require" Toyomura to do anything. See supra section II.A.2. Second, Toyomura's ADLRO proceeding served "nonpunitive [] and purely remedial functions," Higa, 79 Hawai`i at 7, 897 P.2d at 934, and he has suffered no "punishment" as a result of it. See supra section II.A.1. Third, the Dow paradigm was merely that a criminal DUI sentence, involving a mandatory restraint upon a person's freedom of movement, entailed "custody" and, thus, properly implicated federal habeas corpus jurisdictiona proposition utterly irrelevant to the present appeal. Fourth, neither Dow nor, to our knowledge, any other authority suggests that "custody," without more, is synonymous with "punishment" in the double jeopardy context. And fifth, although Toyomura's DUI conviction obviously subjected him to possible punishment, see HRS § 291-4(b) (1993), any punishment meted out was not "additional" to the consequences of his administrative driver's license revocation, the latter, as noted, being "nonpunitive and purely remedial." We therefore hold that Dow fails to establish that Toyomura has been subjected to "multiple punishments for the same offense." In sum, because Toyomura has speciously denominated the needs assessment and alcohol abuse and dependence treatment provisions of HRS § 286-261(d) as "punishments" for past behavior, rather than as permissible preconditions to the prospective privilege of relicensure, he has incorrectly challenged his criminal DUI prosecution under double jeopardy principles. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Toyomura's pretrial motion to dismiss. "In Hawai`i, admission of opinion [testimony] is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of that *909 discretion can result in reversal." State v. Tucker, 10 Haw.App. 73, 89, 861 P.2d 37, 46, reconsideration denied, 9 Haw.App. 660, 894 P.2d 117, cert. denied, 75 Haw. 582, 863 P.2d 989 (1993) (citing Sherry v. Asing, 56 Haw. 135, 148, 531 P.2d 648, 658 (1975)). "Generally, to constitute an abuse [of discretion,] it must appear that the [trial] court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i at 144, 890 P.2d at 1184 (citation omitted). Acknowledging the abuse of discretion standard of review, Toyomura urges that the district court erred "in permitting Officer Fujihara to testify about whether [he, i.e., Toyomura] failed the [FSTs], whether [he] was intoxicated, and whether [his] BAC was in excess of .10% ... and in relying on this testimony to convict [him]." Toyomura's opening brief at 5. Specifically, Toyomura relies on State v. Nishi, 9 Haw.App. 516, 852 P.2d 476 (1993), in making the following argument: Toyomura's opening brief at 7-8 (citation and record references omitted) (emphases in original). Although it is facile and seductive, Toyomura's argument fails to establish that his DUI conviction must be vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial. In Nishi, the district court convicted the defendant (Nishi), inter alia, of DUI, in violation of HRS § 291-4(a)(1). On appeal, Nishi contended that the district court had committed reversible error when it allowed the arresting police officer to render an opinion as to the results of the FSTs that he had administered to Nishi. Affirming the conviction, the Nishi court reasoned as follows: State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 302, 687 P.2d 544, 551 (1984). In [Hawai`i], it is common knowledge that, where a police officer reasonably believes that a motorist is DUI, the officer will order him [or her] out of the car and administer [FSTs] to the motorist with his [or her] consent. Police departments conduct training sessions for police officers relating to the administering of [FSTs] and print and issue to officers [FST] work sheets containing instructions to be given to motorists undergoing these tests. In re Doe, 9 Haw.App. 406, 408-09, 844 P.2d 679, 681 (1992).... Nishi, 9 Haw.App. at 521-24, 852 P.2d at 479-80 (footnotes omitted) (some brackets in original). We now apply the Nishi analysis, which we hereby expressly adopt and approve, to the facts of the present case. Toyomura is correct in his assertion that "a police officer may not testify, without proper foundation, about his opinion about whether a DUI defendant is intoxicated... based on [FSTs]" (emphasis added). See Nishi, 9 Haw.App. at 523, 852 P.2d at 480. Toyomura is also correct in observing that insufficient foundation was laid to permit Officer Fujihara, based on Toyomura's performance of the FSTs, to render a lay opinion as to whether he was intoxicated, inasmuch as the prosecution elicited no testimony establishing that (1) the horizontal gaze nystagmus, "one-leg stand," and "walk-and-turn" procedures were elements of the HPD's official FST protocol, (2) there was any authoritatively established relationship between the manner of performance of these procedures and a person's degree of intoxication, and (3) Officer Fujihara had received any specific training in the administration of the procedures and the "grading" of their results. See id. Therefore, Toyomura is correct that Officer Fujihara was improperly permitted to render an opinion that he (i.e., Toyomura) was intoxicated based in part on Officer Fujihara's assessment of the results of the FSTs. See id. at 523-24, 852 P.2d at 480. Finally, Toyomura is correct in his assertion that Officer Fujihara was neither properly offered as an expert witness[19] nor regarded as such by the district court, which expressly stated that (1) it was considering "only ... the observations of the officer" and "not his grading" of the FSTs themselves and (2) it would consider Officer Fijihara's testimony "from a lay point of view." Toyomura is simply wrong, however, in concluding that "the rule in Nishi was violated in this case" in such a manner as to require that his DUI conviction be vacated. As the trial court correctly noted, "any ... lay person," including a police officer, *912 "can have an opinion regarding sobriety." See id. at 522, 852 P.2d at 479. As set forth above, Officer Fujihara expressly testified that, over the course of his approximately nineteen years as a police officer, he "had an opportunity to observe people who had been drinking and at different levels[.]" And, as noted, the record reflects that the trial court both assured Toyomura that he was considering Officer Fujihara's testimony "only from a lay point of view" and that the trial court applied its independent assessment of the evidence in finding Toyomura guilty of DUI. We have no reason to construe the trial court's statement that "everything" that it heard about Toyomura's condition on the evening in question "told" it that Toyomura was "drunk" constituted a breach of the trial court's promise. See State v. Aplaca, 74 Haw. 54, 65-66, 837 P.2d 1298, 1304-05 (1992) (presuming that trial court applied the correct standard of proof). State v. Heard, 64 Haw. 193, 194, 638 P.2d 307, 308 (1981) (citations omitted). "Where there is a wealth of overwhelming and compelling evidence tending to show the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are deemed harmless." State v. Nakamura, 65 Haw. 74, 80, 648 P.2d 183, 187 (1982) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Examined in the light of the entire proceedings and given the effect that the whole record shows it to be entitled, we are convinced that there is no reasonable possibility that any improper lay opinion testimony on the part of Officer Fujihara contributed to Toyomura's DUI conviction. Accordingly, we hold that any error in the admission of that testimony was harmless. For the foregoing reasons, Toyomura's conviction is affirmed. [1] A person commits the offense of DUI, in violation of HRS § 291-4(a)(1), if he or she "operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, meaning that the person concerned is under the influence of intoxicating liquor in an amount sufficient to impair the person's normal mental faculties or ability to care for oneself and guard against casualty." The record reflects that Toyomura was initially charged with DUI under both HRS §§ 291-4(a)(1) and 291-4(a)(2) (1993) (the latter being committed when a person "operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle with .10 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters or cubic centimeters of blood or .10 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath"). Because the police officer who transported Toyomura to the police station did not appear for trial and the police officer who apparently administered the intoxilyzer test measuring Toyomura's blood-alcohol concentration was ill, the prosecution elected to proceed only under HRS § 291-4(a)(1). See generally State v. Mezurashi, 77 Hawai`i 94, 881 P.2d 1240 (1994). [2] For a detailed description of the Administrative Revocation Program, see Kernan v. Tanaka, 75 Haw. 1, 17-20, 856 P.2d 1207, 1216-17 (1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1070, 127 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1994). [3] Obviously, this opinion only disposes of the issues raised in Toyomura's criminal appeal, which is the matter immediately before us. The justices of this court express no opinion regarding the merits of No. 17845Toyomura's appeal of his administrative license revocationfrom which we are recused. [4] Because "an accused ... faces the possibility of imprisonment" by virtue of the penalty provisions of HRS § 291-4(b) (1993), DUI is a "criminal offense," and the Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure govern prosecutions under HRS § 291-4(a). State v. Lau, 78 Hawai`i 54, 61, 890 P.2d 291, 298 (1995). [5] It is unclear whether Toyomura grounds his double jeopardy claim in the United States Constitution, the Hawai`i Constitution, or both. The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb[.]" Analogously, article I, section 10 of the Hawai`i Constitution (1978) provides that "[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy[.]" However, we have not always construed the clauses as conterminous. See, e.g., State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446, 457-59, 865 P.2d 150, 155-56 (1994) (interpretation given to double jeopardy clause of fifth amendment by United States Supreme Court does not adequately protect individuals from being "subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy," thus requiring additional protection under Hawai`i Constitution). However, insofar as the outcome of Toyomura's appeal is controlled by State v. Higa, 79 Hawai`i 1, 897 P.2d 928 (1995), which did not distinguish between the respective constitutional protections in the context of DUI and denied the appellant's claim on the basis of general "double jeopardy principles," id. at 7, 897 P.2d at 934, we need not consider whether the two constitutions diverge for present purposes. [6] Construed literally, Officer Fujihara's answer indicated that he believed that the NHSTA was, indeed, subsumed within "the federal government or something else," meaning that the NHSTA could have had any conceivable affiliation. However, we believe that the answer may fairly be deemed to convey Officer Fujihara's awareness of the NHSTA's relationship to the United States government. Nevertheless, we admonish all counsel to be sensitive to the records they create. [7] Toyomura's objection was presumably based upon the lack of adequate foundation. [8] Toyomura also objected on the ground of relevance, asserting that he would establish on cross-examination that his foot was injured on the night of the accident and that he suffered from gout. Toyomura does not raise the trial court's disposition of this aspect of his objection as a point of error on appeal, and we accordingly decline to address it. Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (1995). [9] Toyomura did not object at trial to Officer Fujihara's assessment of his performance of the one-leg stand procedure. [10] Toyomura did not object at trial to Officer Fujihara's assessment of his performance of the walk-and-turn procedure. [11] HRS § 286-261(d) provides: Whenever a license is administratively revoked under this part, the offender shall be referred to a certified substance abuse counselor for an assessment of the offender's alcohol abuse or dependence and the need for treatment. The counselor shall submit a report with recommendations to the director. If the counselor's assessment establishes that the extent of the offender's alcohol abuse or dependence warrants treatment, the director may so order. All costs for assessment and treatment shall be paid by the offender. [12] At first blush, it might appear that Toyomura is also claiming the second Lessary/Halper protection against "a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction." However, on closer examination, it is clear that Toyomura does not assert, as such, that his ADLRO proceeding which culminated in the revocation of his driver's licenseis the predicate of his double jeopardy claim. Rather, Toyomura complains of the "punishment" (i.e., the alleged "requirement that [he] must submit to examination, at his own expense, by a certified substance abuse counselor") that he "suffered" as a result of the ADLRO revocation proceeding. Toyomura's opening brief at 5-7. Thus, insofar as he argues that "[b]ecause [he] suffered a punishment in his ADLRO license revocation proceeding, he could not again be subjected to a criminal DUI proceeding that submitted him to possible additional punishment," id. at 7 (emphasis added), Toyomura suggests only that he has been subjected to "multiple punishments for the same offense." [13] See infra section II.A.2 of this opinion. [14] By contrast, there is no question that the $200.00 fine to which Toyomura was sentenced by virtue of his DUI conviction was punitive in character: A fine ... is a "retributive payment" due the sovereign. [State v.] Murray, 63 Haw. [12,] 16, 621 P.2d [334,] 337 [(1980)] (emphasis added). "When used appropriately, fines ... advance punitive objectives[.]" ABA Standards [for Criminal Justice Sentencing (3d ed. 1994)] § 18-3.16 commentary at 114 (emphasis added). "Whether one thinks of punishments in deterrent terms, with the economists, or in retributive terms, with the philosophers, there can in principle be no reason why the fine cannot serve as a credible punishment for nontrivial, indeed serious crimes." N. Morris and M. Tonry, Between Prison and Probation 112 (1990) (emphasis added). Thus, a fine punishes the offender financially[.] State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i 127, 152, 890 P.2d 1167, 1192 (1995) (emphases in original). [15] See supra note 11. [16] Correlatively, "[l]aws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called in aid to explain what is doubtful in another." Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai`i 46, 55, 868 P.2d 1193, 1202 (citing HRS § 1-16 (1985) and Kam v. Noh, 70 Haw. 321, 325, 770 P.2d 414, 417 (1989)), reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai`i 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994). Dines v. Pacific Ins. Co., 78 Hawai`i 325, 331, 893 P.2d 176, 182, reconsideration denied, 78 Hawai`i 474, 896 P.2d 930 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). [17] "Rehabilitation" and "punishment" are distinct penal objectives. See Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i at 137-38 &amp; nn. 33 and 36, 890 P.2d at 1187-88 &amp; nn. 33 and 36; see also HRS §§ 706-606(2)(a) and 706-606(2)(d) (1993). [18] The Dow opinion did not identify the basis of Dow's double jeopardy claim, and, in any event, the Dow court did not address or resolve it. [19] Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 702 provides as follows: Testimony by experts. If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. In Larsen v. State Sav. &amp; Loan Ass'n, 64 Haw. 302, 640 P.2d 286 (1982), the Hawai`i Supreme Court specified three decisions the trial court must make before admitting expert testimony into evidence. They are that (1) the witness is in fact an expert; (2) the subject matter of the inquiry is of such a character that only persons of skill, education, or experience in it are capable of a correct judgment as to any facts connected therewith; and (3) the expert testimony will aid the [trier of fact] to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. See State v. Castro, 69 Haw. 633, 756 P.2d 1033 (1988). With respect to decision (1), the Larsen court said: It is not necessary that the expert witness have the highest possible qualifications to testify about a particular matter, ... but the expert witness must have such skill, knowledge, or experience in the field in question as to make it appear that his opinion or inference-drawing would probably aid the trier of fact in arriving at the truth.... Once the basic requisite qualifications are established, the extent of an expert's knowledge of the subject matter goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the testimony. Larsen, 64 Haw. at 304, 640 P.2d at 288 (citations and footnote omitted). State v. Cababag, 9 Haw.App. 496, 503-04, 850 P.2d 716, 720-21, cert. denied, 74 Haw. 652, 853 P.2d 542 (1993) (ellipsis points in original) (emphases added).