311 P.3d 676
Haw.2013Background
- Petitioner charged with excessive speeding under HRS § 291C-105(a)(1) alleging driving 76 mph in a 35 mph zone; charge did not specify a state of mind.
- Laser speed reading was obtained via an LTI 20-20 device; officer relied on a manual provided by LTI, with training and testing procedures described but lacking personal knowledge of manual origin.
- Defense objected to foundation for the speed reading, challenging whether the four tests and manufacturer requirements were properly established.
- Trial court found credibility in officer’s testimony and held that the speed reading could show recklessness; court inferred mens rea from circumstances.
- Appellate court (ICA) affirmed admission of the speed reading and held the evidence sufficient against the charge; Nesmith issue later triggered review.
- This court vacated the ICA judgment, remanding for dismissal without prejudice, and addressed whether the laser speed-reading foundation and the charge's mens rea omission required dismissal and/or retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the missing mens rea in the charge requires dismissal without prejudice. | Nesmith requires dismissal without prejudice for missing state of mind. | Charge omitted requisite state of mind; due process violated. | Charge lacks needed mens rea; Nesmith mandates dismissal without prejudice. |
| Whether the laser gun reading was admissible without adequate foundation under Assaye and Manewa. | State showed tests and training per manufacturer; testimony linked to manual. | Officer lacked personal knowledge linking manual to manufacturer; insufficient foundation. | Foundation inadequate; four tests not shown to be manufacturer-approved; training not proven to meet manufacturer specs. |
| Whether the charge's lack of mens rea is jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional and subject to plain-error review. | Defect in charge is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. | Charge defect not jurisdictional; may be reviewed for plain error. | Insufficient charge not jurisdictional; late challenge reviewed for plain error; prejudice required. |
| Whether dismissal without prejudice is appropriate given likelihood of retrial. | Nesmith framework supports dismissal to avoid due process violation. | Retrial should be permissible if foundational issues resolved. | Remand with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i 48 (2012) (state of mind must be charged; omission mandates dismissal without prejudice)
- State v. Elliott, 77 Hawai'i 309 (1994) (omission of mens rea can render charge defective under liberal review)
- State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai'i 204 (2009) (manufacturer’s procedure required for laser precision; training must meet manufacturer standards)
- State v. Manewa, 115 Hawai'i 343 (2007) (insufficient foundation when device servicing not shown by manufacturer’s representative)
- State v. Gonzalez, 128 Hawai'i 314 (2012) (strict- or absolute-liability implications rejected; mens rea required to be charged)