Opinion ID: 2516950
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: without due care: absurd results and unconstitutional vagueness

Text: The alternative means theory creates problems of interpretation with regard to the first means by which the offense of inattention to driving could be committed-namely, to operate a vehicle without due care. It is a basic rule of statutory interpretation that [p]rovisions of a penal statute will be accorded a limited and reasonable interpretation . . . in order to preserve its overall purpose and to avoid absurd results. State v. Bates, 84 Hawai'i 211, 220, 933 P.2d 48, 57 (1997). Under the first part of the alternative means theory, one may be prosecuted for slips in attention or other instances of inattentiveness while driving, such as momentarily taking one's eyes of the road, even when no harm results. Such possibilities show the potential for arguably absurd applications resulting from the alternative means interpretation. The alternative means theory also raises potential constitutional concerns. [W]here possible, we will read a penal statute in such a manner as to preserve its constitutionality. To accord a constitutional interpretation of a provision of broad or apparent unrestricted scope, courts will strive to focus the scope of the provision to a narrow and more restricted construction. Id. Interpreting the statute to apply to any driving that betokens, without more, a lack of due care raises potential problems of unconstitutional vagueness, by granting indeterminate discretion to arresting officers to apply the statute. This court has explained that [d]ue process of law requires that a penal statute state with reasonable clarity the act it proscribes and provide fixed standards for adjudicating guilt, or the statute is void for vagueness. Statutes must give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited so that he or she may choose between lawful and unlawful conduct. Id. Vagueness is measured by the following standard: [A] criminal statute is void for vagueness unless it: 1) gives the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he or she may act accordingly, and 2) provides explicit standards for those who apply the statute, in order to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and the delegation of basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis. Id. Because it fails to specify an explicit standard, the mere command that one not drive without due careregardless of any physical harm caused by such drivingraises potential problems of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The potential of the alternative means theory to violate important penal and constitutional principles suggests that a more sensible interpretation would be preferred.