Opinion ID: 871589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Walker’s Circuit Court Proceedings

Text: On April 21, 2008, the State charged Walker by Felony Information and Non-Felony Complaint (Felony Information): COUNT I: On or about the 17th day of April, 2008, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, SAMUEL WALKER, also known as SAMUEL AHSAN, a habitual operator of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, did operate or assume actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair his normal mental faculties or ability to guard against casualty, thereby committing the offense of Habitually Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Sections 291E-61.5(a)(1) and 291E61.5(a)(2)(A) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Officer Hill confirmed with HPD dispatch that Walker, under his alias Samuel Ahsan, had three OVUII convictions within the preceding ten years. Attached to the Felony Information, HPD Officer Benjamin Moszkowicz submitted a declaration stating: A check with both the Criminal Justice Information System, as well as court records of the District Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, revealed that on April 17, 2008, Walker had three (3) prior convictions within the State of Hawaii for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, and/or Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor under HPD Report Numbers 06408360, 03-515849[,] and 03-389761 and that these convictions occurred between April 17, 1998 and April 17, 2008. 13 On the first nine steps, Walker raised his arms on steps one, three, seven, and eight. On the second nine steps, Walker raised his arms on steps five, six, and seven. 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  During the circuit court proceedings, Walker filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (Motion to Suppress) on May 27, 2008. Specifically, Walker moved to suppress his statement to Officer Hill that he consumed “eight or nine beers.” Walker argued that Officer Hill obtained this statement in violation of his constitutional rights under article I, sections 5 and 10 of the Hawai#i Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On August 12, 2008, the circuit court denied Walker’s Motion to Suppress. The circuit court made the following findings of fact: 1. The Court finds Officer Morgan Hill’s testimony credible. 2. Based on the credible testimony of Officer Morgan Hill, this court finds that [Walker] revved his vehicle’s engine, caused his vehicle’s tires to spin and screech, accelerated to a fast rate of speed in a residential area, and traveled at a speed well beyond the limit of 25 mph posted in that area. 3. When Officer Hill approached [Walker’s] vehicle after stopping [Walker] for the observed violation of the basic speed rule and asked [Walker] for his driver’s license and registration, Officer Hill noticed that [Walker] had red, glassy, bloodshot eyes, strong and distinct odor of an alcoholic type beverage coming from his breath[,] and a slight slur as [he] spoke. 4. At about the same time as Officer Hill asked [Walker] if he had been drinking[,] Officer [Hill] also observed an open beer container. 5. [Walker], while sitting in his car[,] answered to Officer Hill in response to a single question that he drank only eight or nine beers earlier, that he will be okay and that he lives just over here, whereas the entire interaction between [Walker] and Officer Hill from the time of the stop to the time of [Walker’s] response lasted about 15 seconds. 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Additionally, the circuit court entered the following conclusions of law: 1. Based on Officer Hill’s observation of [Walker] revving his vehicle’s engine, spinning and screeching tires[,] and acceleration [sic] to a high rate of speed, above a safe speed under the circumstances, Officer Hill had a reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant for violation of the basic speed rule under H.R.S. [§] 291C-101. 2. At the time [Officer Hill] approached [Walker’s] vehicle and spoke to [Walker], [Walker] was not in custody under State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 687 P.2d 544 (1984), and State v. Kuba, 68 Haw. 184, 706 P.2d 1305 (1985). 3. Consequently[,] because [Walker] was not in custody at the time a question was posed to him whether he was drinking, Miranda warnings did not have to be given to [Walker] prior to asking the question. 4. The Court finds that [Walker’s] response that he only drank eight or nine beers earlier and that he will be okay, because he lives just over here was given freely, voluntarily[,] and has a character of spontaneity, and therefore this statement was not elicited in violation of [Walker’s] right against self incrimination. On October 15, 2008, Walker submitted a memorandum of law contending, inter alia, that Count I failed to allege an essential element of the State’s accusations. Specifically, Count I of the Felony Information fails to allege the attendant circumstances of [HRS] section 291E-61.5 (2007), namely that [Walker] had three (3) prior convictions for [OVUII] within ten (10) years of the present offense. Count I’s statement that [Walker] is “a habitual operator of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant” is nothing more than a statutory reference. A reader must refer to the statute itself to determine the meaning of this phrase, and thus, it is no more useful than the statutory citation at the end of Count I. However, statutory references in the charging instrument do not cure the omission of essential elements. . . . Because the State failed to allege the attendant circumstances of [Walker’s] prior convictions, the State has merely charged [Walker] with OVUII as a first offense pursuant to HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) (2007). Walker waived his right to a jury trial. During Officer Hill’s cross-examination, Walker’s counsel presented 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Officer Hill with an alleged NHTSA manual. Officer Hill testified that he did not own a NHTSA manual and could not testify to its contents in several respects. Based on this testimony, before sentencing on November 6, 2008, Walker submitted his trial memorandum in which he argued that the circuit court should disregard Officer Hill’s testimony “regarding the administration and results of the [HGN] test performed on [Walker] because the evidence showed that Officer Hill was not qualified to conduct and grade the HGN test results and Officer Hill did not perform the HGN test properly in this case.” The circuit court ruled from the bench and found Walker guilty of, inter alia, Count I, habitually operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Judgment of conviction and sentence was entered against Walker on January 26, 2009. The circuit court entered the following conclusions of law: 1. There is no defect in the charging instrument in this case. The State has alleged all the elements of the offense including the attendant circumstances in the complaint by specifying that [Walker] was “a habitual operator of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant”. [sic] 2. “Habitual” is only used in a habitual OVUII statute, and it clearly has a unique meaning in the Hawaii Penal Code. Hawaii Revised Statutes, §291-E 61.5 [sic] (“H.R.S.”). The use of the words “habitual operator” under State v. Kekuewa, 114 Haw[ai#i] 411, 418[,] [163 P.3d 1148, 1155] (2007) in the complaint in the instant case: (1) gives notice to [Walker] that he has a right to a jury trial and (2) gives notice to the Circuit Court that it has jurisdiction because the offense is a class C felony under HRS 291-E 61.5 [sic]. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  3. The interaction between [Walker] and Officer Hill from the time of the stop to the time of [Walker’s] response regarding drinking [eight] or [nine] beers was not a custodial interrogation under State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 687 P.2d 544 (1984). 4. Even without considering [Walker’s] admission of drinking 8 or 9 beers and his performance on the HGN phase of the SFST, this Court finds that [Walker] was under the influence of an intoxicant as he drove on a public street and was impaired beyond a reasonable doubt under State v. Ferm, 94 Haw[ai#i] 17, 25, 7 P.3d 193, 202 (2000) and State v. Vliet, 91 Haw[ai#i] 288, 293-94, [983] P.2d[] 189, 194-95 (1999). The circuit court sentenced Walker to a five-year indeterminate term of incarceration for Count I. Walker appealed.