Opinion ID: 2812867
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disjunctive Charging Language

Text: In Codiamat, 131 Hawaii 220, 317 P.3d 664, this court recognized that “states of mind may be charged disjunctively,” and “acts may be charged disjunctively when the words used charge similar or analogous forms of conduct that are codified in a single subsection of a statute.” 131 Hawaii at 227, 317 P.3d at 671 (citing State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 248, 831 P.2d 924, 931 (1992); State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw. 279, 280, 567 P.2d 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  1242, 1243 (1977); State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawaii 48, 51, 276 P.3d 617, 620 (2012)). Here, the ICA “conclude[d] that the charges against Vaimili gave him fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and what he needed to be prepared to meet” because the State was permitted to “prove the charges against him through proof of alternative acts or states of mind.” Although initially, the ICA accurately quoted our holding in Codiamat, the ICA’s subsequent language in Part I.D. of its discussion, partially quoted in Part II.B., supra, is overly expansive and may suggest an extension of our holding in Codiamat. We therefore expressly reiterate that our conclusion is limited to the following: “when charging a defendant under a single subsection of a statute, the charge may be worded disjunctively in the language of the statute as long as the acts charged are reasonably related so that the charge provides sufficient notice to the defendant.” Codiamat, 131 Hawaii at 227, 317 P.3d at 671 (footnote omitted). Here, Vaimili was charged by amended complaint. See supra Part II.A. A review of the actions alleged in each count reveals that the charges were worded disjunctively in the language of a single subsection of each respective statute. Nevertheless, Vaimili asserts that the charges for each count gave him insufficient notice of the specific acts with 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  which he was charged. In brief, for each count charged, he identifies four possible acts that could support a conviction of the charge, and states that the four acts were “distinct and separate acts that [he] had to prepare to defend.” For example, with respect to Count I, Vaimili asserts: [T]here were four distinct acts that could have supported Vaimili’s conviction: 1) intentionally restraining [the CW] with intent to terrorize her; 2) knowingly restraining [the CW] with intent to terrorize her; 3) intentionally restraining [the CW] with intent to terrorize an unspecified third person; or 4) knowingly restraining [the CW] with intent to terrorize an unspecified third person. Vaimili’s assertion is without merit. The State’s charging of multiple “distinct and separate” acts using disjunctive language is permissible as long as use of the disjunctive is confined to address “similar or analogous forms of conduct” contained in a single subsection of a statute; in this way, the alleged acts are reasonably related, and each of those separate acts can be ascertained. Codiamat, 131 Hawaii at 227, 317 P.3d at 671. Here, determination of the content and number of disparate acts alleged is not an issue, as Vaimili readily identifies each of them. Further, Vaimili’s assertions that the disparate acts alleged by the State within each count are not reasonably related to provide Vaimili with requisite notice, are unpersuasive. Vaimili points only to the kidnapping charge in Count I to illustrate why he was not given sufficient notice. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  That is, Vaimili suggests that Count I did not provide him sufficient notice because the amended complaint did not allege the identity of the possible “third person.” Yet, the absence of the identity of the “third person” in the amended complaint, which could have been rectified by a motion for a bill of particulars, see HRS § 806-47 (1993), bears not on whether the State’s use of the disjunctive failed to give Vaimili adequate notice of the “nature and cause of the accusation,” Haw. Const. art. I, § 14; that is, whether “the acts charged are reasonably related.” Vaimili provides no other reasons to support a conclusion that the acts charged within each count are not reasonably related. The charges met due process requirements as they provided fair notice and were worded “‘in a manner such that the nature and cause of the accusation could be understood by a person of common understanding.’” Codiamat, 131 Hawaii at 223, 317 P.3d at 667 (quoting State v. Sprattling, 99 Hawaii 312, 318, 55 P.3d 276, 282 (2002)). As previously noted, each count of the charges against Vaimili was worded disjunctively in the language of a single subsection of a statute, alleging conduct that was reasonably related. We conclude the amended complaint provided sufficient notice to Vaimili and was not defective. See Codiamat, 131 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Hawaii at 227, 317 P.3d at 671. Further, as no potentially meritorious defense was implicated, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance for failing to object to the disjunctive charging language. See Wakisaka, 102 Hawaii at 51314, 78 P.3d at 326-27.