Court Opinion

ID: 9605707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:40:54.955648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:29.862639
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
KOBAYASHI. J.
I would reverse and acquit defendant. Even a cursory reading of Section 852 of the Hawaii Penal Code,1 which provides in relevant part:
(1) A person commits the offense of forgery in the second degree if, with intent to defraud, he falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument, or utters a forged instrument . . . ,
makes it clear that the defendant was unlawfully convicted. The indictment charged the defendant, to-wit: . . did,
with intent to defraud, falsely complete and utter a written instrument” (emphasis added). The indictment does not charge the defendant with the offense of forgery.
Under said Section 852 a defendant commits the offense of forgery in the second degree if either (1) with intent to defraud, he falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument; or (2) with intent to defraud, he utters a forged instrument.
The indictment was prejudicially ambiguous and defective. A possible reading of the indictment was that the defendant “did, with intent to defraud, falsely complete a written instrument”. However, no evidence was adduced to sustain such a charge. Instead, evidence was adduced to show that the defendant “did, with intent to defraud, utter a forged instrument”. Thus, even if we conclude that the indictment *624stated the above charge, there was a fatal variance between proof and allegations in the indictment. See Heath v. United States, 209 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1954); United States v. Four Diamond Rings, 4 U.S. Dist. Ct. Haw. 693 (1916); Territory v. Miyamoto, 29 Haw. 697 (1927).
It is fundamental that in criminal prosecutions an accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. U.S. Const, amend. VI; Hawaii Const. art. I, § 11; Territory v. Burns, 27 Haw. 253 (1923).
The trial court also erred prejudicially as against the defendant by instructing the jury that the jury could find defendant guilty if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant uttered a “forged writing’ ’ — a crime for which the defendant was not charged.

 Thu Hawaii Penal Code is not yet published in the supplement to HRS. but the text of the Hawaii Penal (’ode may be found in S.L.H. 1972, Act 9. pp. 32-142.