Opinion ID: 2633469
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elements of the charged offense and the state of mind of the accused

Text: An indictment must enable a grand jury to determine that probable cause exists that the accused committed a violation of the charged offense both as to the elements of the offense and the concomitant culpable state of mind. See Ontai, 84 Hawai`i at 63, 929 P.2d at 76 (Probable cause is established by `a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.') (quoting State v. Chung, 75 Haw. 398, 409-10, 862 P.2d 1063, 1070 (1993)); State v. Araki, 82 Hawai'i 474, 482, 923 P.2d 891, 899 (1996) (Probable cause has been established when it can be said that a reasonable and prudent person viewing the evidence would have a strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.); Kane, 3 Haw.App. at 458, 652 P.2d at 648 (holding that the grand jury had sufficient facts to find probable cause that the defendant had committed a violation of HRS § 134-9, relating to firearms possession); State v. Okumura, 59 Haw. 549, 550, 584 P.2d 117, 119 (1978) (A grand jury indictment must be based on probable cause. . . [, meaning such facts necessary] to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of guilt of the accused.) (Internal citation omitted.). Because conscientiously entertain[ing] a strong suspicion of guilt of the accused necessitates establishing a likelihood that (1) all elements of the charged offense are present and (2) the accused possessed the requisite state of mind as to each element of the charged offense, an indictment must, ipso facto, aver facts sufficient to permit the grand jury to find probable cause both as to the elements of the charged offense and to the accused's state of mind.