Opinion ID: 2627867
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ICA Affirmed The Circuit Court's Ruling

Text: On appeal, Woodfall argued that the plain language of the HRS § 708-839.7 phrase transmission of any personal information of another prohibits the transmission of personal information from a real person, but not a fictitious person. Woodfall also maintained that, even assuming that the statute is ambiguous and the court is required to resort to the statute's legislative history, extrinsic documents verify that the statute intended to provide criminal penalties for those who steal the identity of another.  (Quoting Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 446, in 2002 House Journal, at 1409-10.) (Emphasis in original.) The prosecution argued that the circuit court's construction of HRS § 708-839.7 was correct under the plain language of the statute and the statute's legislative history. It pointed out that the legislature indicated that the bill that enacted this statute served to provide criminal penalties for persons: (1) Committing identity theft of another individual; and (2) Obtaining identity documents under false pretenses or using a false or fictitious identity.  (Quoting Hse. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 25, in 2002 House Journal, at 1765.) (Emphasis in original.) The ICA issued a summary disposition order that affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The ICA determined that the circuit court's interpretation of HRS § 708-839.7 was correct: The statutory language of HRS § 708-839.7 when read with the definition of personal information provided in HRS § 708-800 supports the circuit court's determination that under HRS § 708-839.7, a person commits the offense of identity theft in the second degree if he or she transmits any personal information of an actual or fictitious person with the intent to commit the offense of theft in the second degree. (Emphasis added.) Noting that Woodfall admitted that he used a fictitious identity with the intent to commit theft in the second degree, the ICA declined to reverse the circuit court's decision to deny Woodfall's motion to dismiss. The ICA filed a judgment on appeal on November 18, 2008. On January 20, 2009, Woodfall filed a timely application for writ of certiorari.