Opinion ID: 1123578
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Liberal Construction Standard is Inapplicable

Text: Initially, the Prosecution urges us to review the indictment in favor of validity by applying the liberal construction standard used in State v. Motta, 66 Haw. 89, 657 P.2d 1019 (1983). See State v. Elliott, 77 Hawai`i 314, 884 P.2d 377 (App.1994), cert. granted, 76 Hawai`i 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994). In Motta, this court adopted the rule followed in most federal courts of liberally construing indictments challenged for the first time on appeal. Motta, 66 Haw. at 91, 657 P.2d at 1020. Elaborating on this standard, this court stated that it would not reverse a conviction based upon a defective indictment unless the defendant can show prejudice or that the indictment cannot within reason be construed to charge a crime. Id. However, in State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 660 P.2d 39 (1983), this court rejected the liberal construction standard for reviewing timely motions challenging the sufficiency of indictments. In Robins, the State appealed the granting of a motion to dismiss an indictment for burglary. Id. at 312, 660 P.2d at 39. Noting that the alleged deficiency in the indictment was raised by a timely motion, this court held that [the] liberal construction rule laid down in Motta with respect to such contentions when raised after conviction was inapplicable. Id. at 314, 660 P.2d at 41. Because the present case involves an order granting a timely motion to dismiss an indictment, we hold that the liberal construction standard is inapplicable. Thus, we now address the sufficiency of the indictment.