State v. Davis., 324 P.3d 912

Davis was convicted in the district court of operating after license suspended/revoked for DUI under HRS §§ 291E-62(a)(1)-(2).
ICA vacated the conviction and remanded to dismiss without prejudice due to a defective charge lacking a required state of mind under Nesmith/Gonzalez.
Davis sought certiorari contending the ICA should decide sufficiency and double jeopardy issues, and challenging Exhibit 1’s admission.
Court holdings: under Hawai'i Const. art. I, §10, appellate review must address sufficiency before remand for a defective charge; substantial evidence supported the conviction; double jeopardy did not bar retrial.
Evidence at trial centered on Davis driving on Kamehameha Highway with a five-year probation condition prohibiting vehicle operation, tied to a March 19, 2007 judgment of conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficiency must be reviewed before remand for a defective charge	Davis argues sufficiency must be reviewed despite charging defect; Nesmith/Gonzalez require remand	Davis asserts double jeopardy bars retrial if insufficiency exists, so sufficiency should be addressed	Yes; the court must review sufficiency before remand when challenged together with charging error
Whether Exhibit 1 was properly self-authenticated	Exhibit 1 lacked valid certification/authentication	Exhibit 1 was sealed and certified by the circuit clerk as custodian	Exhibit 1 properly met 902(1)/(4) self-authentication requirements
Whether there was substantial evidence to sustain the conviction	State failed to prove public way, identity, probation status, and awareness of probation terms	State linked Davis to prior conviction; probation terms prohibited vehicle operation; evidence sufficient	Yes; substantial evidence supported conviction under HRS §§ 291E-62(a)(1)-(2)
Whether double jeopardy precludes retrial after remand	Nesmith/Gonzalez imply retrial barred if insufficiency proved	Retrial allowed where sufficiency evidence supports conviction	No; retrial permitted because sufficiency supported conviction

Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (U.S. 1896) (double jeopardy and trial error considerations in remand)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (insufficiency of the evidence bars retrial; remand for new trial possible for trial error)
Justices of Boston M.C. v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1984) (two-tier system and de novo retrial considerations)
Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1984) (mistrials and retrial principles; limits of double jeopardy in hung jury)
State v. Gonzalez, 128 Hawai'i 314, 288 P.3d 788 (Haw. 2012) (defective charge requires dismissal without prejudice; Nesmith cited)
State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i 48, 276 P.3d 617 (Haw. 2012) (mens rea deficiency generally requires dismissal without prejudice)
State v. Apollonio, 130 Hawai'i 353, 311 P.3d 676 (Haw. 2013) (excessive speeding charge lacking mens rea; remand guidance)
State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai'i 43, 237 P.3d 1109 (Haw. 2010) (sufficiency review and double jeopardy alignment in remand)
State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai'i 479, 291 P.3d 377 (Haw. 2013) (sufficiency and trial error in remand framework)
State v. Getz, 131 Hawai'i 19, 313 P.3d 708 (Haw. 2013) (vacate convictions for trial error; examine sufficiency)