Court Opinion

ID: 9536495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:00:50.230275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:34.699025
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
WAKATSUKI, J.,
WITH WHOM RETIRED JUSTICE NAKAMURA, JOINS
I respectfully dissent.
Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure 7(d) provides that “[fjormal defects, including error in the citation or its omission, shall not be ground for dismissal of the charge or for reversal of a conviction if the defect did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.” The question here is whether the missing signature of the prosecutor on the complaint is a “formal defect.”
The Note to Rule 7 in the 1975 Proposed Draft of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure states:
Under the present rules, the prosecutor’s signature to indictments and informations are required but not to complaints, which are only sworn to by a complaining witness. Thus, although the present Hawaii rules expressly *173give the prosecutor discretionary control in determining whether an indictment or information is to be filed or not by requiring his signature thereon, they are not clear as to whether such control resides in the prosecutor with regard to complaints. And since a complaint under the existing rules become (sic) a charging pleading under HRCrP 5, the result is that although discretionary control over the commencement of prosecutions is given to the prosecutor where instituted by indictments and informations, such control may not exist where instituted by complaint. The proposed rule adopts the position that the prosecutor has such discretionary control over the commencement of all prosecutions, by requiring his signature on all indictments and complaints.
Like the Federal Rules, Section (c) requires the prosecutor’s signature to all written charges, thus adopting the position that all prosecutions be commenced subject to the discretionary control of the prosecutor. (Citations omitted) (emphasis added).
The only purpose of the signature requirement is to insure that the prosecutor has sole authority in initialing a prosecution. The goal is to prevent another person from commencing a prosecution where the prosecutor would choose not to prosecute. In this case, there is no question that the prosecutor chose to prosecute this case, as the prosecution resisted the motion to dismiss the complaint and proceeded to trial. Thus, the absence of the prosecutor’s signature hardly suggests that the prosecution was commenced against the will of the prosecutor.
Consequently, the missing signature of the prosecutor, in my view, is a “formal defect” that does not warrant reversal of the conviction based on the fact that the defendant does not claim that the defect misled him to his prejudice. Furthermore, the arraignment transcript does show that the court told the defendant:
*174“You’re charged with striking Dina K. Mikami in the face area with your hands on February 23,1989.
Ms. Wallace, Defendant is pleading not guilty?
Mr. Knocppel: Yes, your Honor.
Ms. Wallace: Yes.”
Although the prosecutor did not do the reading, the court in effect substituted for the prosecutor and provided the “plain, concise and definite... statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” HRPP Rule 7(d). No citation to the statute allegedly violated was read but the rule states that such an omission is a formal defect not warranting dismissal where the defendant is not misled. HRPP Rule 7(d).
I would affirm the conviction.