318 P.3d 602
Haw. App.2013Background
- Alangcas appeals from two interlocutory orders (Sept. 17, 2009) denying motions to dismiss Counts I and III of Hawaii indictment for electronic enticement of a child in the first degree under HRS § 707-756.
- Indictment alleges communications with police officers posing as minors, with intent to meet and promote or facilitate a felony defined in HRS § 846E-1, and travel to the meeting place.
- Alangcas allegedly began contacting the purported minors in Aug. 2008, with meetings at Starbucks (Sept. 3, 2008) and McDonald’s (Mar. 3, 2009) leading to arrest after the latter attempt.
- Two separate motions to dismiss were filed (July 13, 2009) challenging vagueness/overbreadth and a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to HRS § 707-756.
- Hearing occurred Sept. 2, 2009; orders denying relief were entered Sept. 17, 2009; interlocutory appeal granted Sept. 28, 2009.
- Counts II and IV (promoting pornography) are not at issue on this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRS § 707-756 is vague/overbroad as applied | State contends statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad when read in its entirety. | Alangcas argues the statute is vague/overbroad, ensnares innocent conduct, and lacks adequate mens rea alignment. | Not unconstitutionally vague/overbroad as applied. |
| Whether HRS § 707-756 violates the dormant Commerce Clause | State maintains the statute does not unduly burden interstate commerce and serves local public safety interests. | Alangcas argues the statute intrudes on interstate commerce and requires national regulation for Internet conduct. | No dormant Commerce Clause violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beltran, 116 Haw. 146 (Haw. 2007) (overbreadth/vagueness considerations; standing and application)
- State v. Kaneakua, 61 Haw. 136 (Haw. 1979) (vagueness/overbreadth; analysis of catchall language)
- State v. Gaylord, 78 Haw. 127 (Haw. 1995) (presumption of constitutionality; narrowly construe statutes)
- State v. Holbron, 80 Haw. 27 (Haw. 1995) (distinction between complete crime and attempt)
- State v. Chun, 102 Haw. 383 (Haw. 2003) (context of 846E-1 and registration framework)
- People v. Foley, 94 N.Y.2d 668 (N.Y. 2000) (distinguishes luring statutes from dissemination statutes; Commerce Clause relevance)
- People v. Hsu, 82 Cal.App.4th 976 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (internet as interstate commerce; narrow electronic enticement statutes withstand scrutiny)
- Backlund, 672 N.W.2d 431 (N.D. 2003) (commerce clause considerations for electronic enticement analogs)
- Cashatt v. State, 873 So.2d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (sustains electronic enticement-style statutes under Pike framework)