Opinion ID: 2634857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Resolution of the First Issue Disposes of the Case

Text: Although Aiwohi advances several other arguments challenging the constitutionality of her prosecution under HRS § 707-702(1)(a), we need not address them in this opinion. Specifically, as we have noted, Aiwohi contends that: (1) HRS § 707-702(1)(a) fails to provide fair notice and/or is unconstitutionally vague in violation of article I, section 5 of the Hawai`i Constitution; (2) HRS § 707-702(1)(a) fails to provide fair notice and/or is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) Aiwohi's prosecution for manslaughter interferes with an expectant mother's fundamental right to procreate, in violation of article I, section 6 of the Hawai`i Constitution; (4) Aiwohi's prosecution for manslaughter is an unconstitutional, retroactive expansion of HRS § 707-702(1)(a), in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution; and (5) Aiwohi was denied her right to present a defense, in violation of the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, when the circuit court rejected Aiwohi's common law defense of immunity for an expectant mother's prenatal conduct. Inasmuch as our holding  that Aiwohi's prosecution for the offense of manslaughter is unsupported by the plain language of the HPC  is dispositive, it is unnecessary to address Aiwohi's remaining constitutional arguments.