Opinion ID: 703576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Written Summary of Charges

Text: 14 Shak contends that the district court erred by holding that due process did not entitle him to a written summary of the misdemeanor charges against him, setting forth the essential facts constituting the offenses charged and demonstrating that there was probable cause to believe that those offenses had been committed by him. This contention lacks merit. 15 The grand jury requirement of the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to the states, and accordingly, prosecution via an information is not unconstitutional. James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325, 327-28 (9th Cir.1976). Moreover, a misdemeanor conviction may be sought and sustained upon the basis of an unverified Information standing alone. Church v. United States, 412 F.2d 836, 838 (9th Cir.1969) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the State of Hawaii was not required to proceed against Shak by indictment. 16 Under the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure, in non-felony cases, the accused is orally apprised of the pending charges in open court. Haw.R.Penal P. Sec. 5(b)(1). The Supreme Court of Hawaii, moreover, has rejected the claim that the omission to furnish a copy of a complaint is a jurisdictional defect. Shak v. Doi, 420 P.2d 100, 102 (1966). Here, Shak had the formal charges read to him orally twice and was also given a bail receipt informing him of the charges and the time to appear in court. Shak does not allege, moreover, that he did not understand the nature of the charges against him. Consequently, the district court properly ruled that Shak was not entitled to a detailed written summary of the misdemeanor charges. 17 AFFIRMED.