Opinion ID: 2633469
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: In addition to alleging the elements of the charged offense, the plain language of HRS § 806-34 requires that an indictment aver facts sufficient to show that the court has jurisdiction. In turn, HRPP Rule 12(b)(2), see supra note 6, allows motions to dismiss based on jurisdictional defects at any time during the pendency of the proceedings. Indeed, jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the person of the accused is a fundamental and indispensable prerequisite to a valid prosecution. Adams v. State, 103 Hawai`i 214, 221, 81 P.3d 394, 401 (2003) (citing State v. Meyers, 72 Haw. 591, 593, 825 P.2d 1062, 1064 (1992) (citations omitted)). Venue too must be established for an indictment to be sufficient, though, under Hawai`i law, venue rides the coattails of jurisdiction: HRS § 806-16 (1993) states that [i]t shall not be necessary to state any venue in the body of any indictment, but the jurisdiction named in the margin thereof shall be taken to be the venue for all facts stated in the body of the indictment. Finally, article I, section 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution requires that, [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, or of such other district to which the prosecution may be removed with the consent of the accused.... (Emphasis added.) A plain reading of this language supports the conclusion that proper venue must be ascertained before a prosecution at trial may lawfully proceed. [22]