ICA holds that failure to specify state of mind in OVUII charge not deprive trial court of subject matter jurisdiction

On June 14, 2011, the ICA issued its opinion in State v. Pai, No. 30516 (ICA- Unpublished Summary Disposition Order. Panel: Foley, Reifurth and Ginoza). This case is an appeal from District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, Hon. William Cardwell presiding. Briefing attorneys were Timothy I. McMaster, Esq. (Pai) and Anne E. Clarkman, Esq. (State).

In Pai, Defendant was convicted of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), a violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1). On the day of trial, Pai filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the charging document failed to allege the requisite state of mind necessary to commit the crime, thus failing to state an essential fact and give adequate notice of the charge. This failure, Pai alleged, deprived the District Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

The ICA affirmed, holding:

• OVUII determined by alcohol content is an “absolute liability” offense. The HRS § 702-204 requirement that the State must prove a defendant acted with the requisite state of mind does not “apply to a crime outside the penal code where a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability plainly appears[.]”
• There is no such legislative intent for OVUII determined by impairment. It is therefore not an “absolute liability offense” and the state of mind requirements under HRS § 702-204 apply. Because OVUII does not specify a requisite state of mind, “the state of mind is intentionally, knowingly or recklessly[.]”
• This is a separate issue from whether the charging instrument adequately gives a defendant notice of the charges against him. Here, the charging document was adequate as “state of mind is not an ‘element’ of a criminal offense.” Further, OVUII is a “general intent” crime, and the state of mind can be inferred without specification in the charge.