Title: State v. Wacker
Citation: 770 P.2d 420
Docket Number: 13257
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: March 15, 1989

770 P.2d 420 (1989) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry Joseph WACKER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 13257. Supreme Court of Hawaii. March 15, 1989. *421 Lila B. LeDuc, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant. R. Steven Geshell, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee. Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. PADGETT, Justice. This is an appeal by the State from an Order Dismissing a charge for Driving Under the Influence, under HRS § 291-4(a)(2). In this case, appellant was charged under both HRS sections 291-4(a)(1) and 291-4(a)(2). The two charges were tried together as required under HRS § 701-109(2). At the trial, appellee was acquitted of the offense under section (a)(1), but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charge under section (a)(2). The court below believed that, under HRS § 701-111(1), it was required to dismiss the charge under HRS § 291-4(a)(2), rather than conduct a retrial. We reverse. HRS § 701-109(2) provides: But for the section just quoted, appellee could have been tried separately on the offenses under HRS § 291-4(a)(1) and -4(a)(2). In that event a mistrial, resulting from the lack of agreement by the jury in either trial, would have resulted in a new trial. The construction placed by the court below, on HRS § 701-111(1), leads to an untenable result, which frustrates the purpose of HRS § 701-109(2). HRS § 701-111 obviously was intended to deal with a new prosecution, commenced after a termination of a prior prosecution, and terminated as defined in that section. It was not intended to deal with a situation where there were multiple counts, under different statutes, in an original prosecution, which were tried together as *422 required by statute, resulting in an acquittal on some of the counts, and a mistrial on others. Appellant also raises a constitutional contention of double jeopardy. However, we follow State v. Arakaki, 7 Haw. App.Adv.Sh. 50, 744 P.2d 783 (1987), and find no double jeopardy in this case. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.