State v. Gonzalez., 288 P.3d 788

Gonzalez charged by district court with excessive speeding under HRS 291 C-105(a)(1)/(a)(2) for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone.
Oral charge read to defendant did not specify requisite mens rea; State argued mens rea not element and statute not strict liability.
Court denied motion to dismiss; trial found Gonzalez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt including recklessness as mens rea.
Laser speed reading obtained by Officer Franks using LTI Ultralyte 100; reading of 96 mph introduced at trial.
Officer Franks testified to calibration/ Tests from a manual and training; defense challenged manufacturer sanctioning and training requirements.
This appeal vacates the conviction and dismisses the charge without prejudice, citing non-strict liability and failure to allege mental state; potential retrial disrupted by improper foundation for laser reading.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HRS 291 C-105(a) is a strict liability offense	State contends strict liability applies	Gonzalez argues lack of mens rea required	Not a strict liability offense; mens rea required
Whether the oral charge sufficiently alleged state of mind	Nesmith not cited; State argues lack of element is acceptable	Charge failed to allege requisite state of mind	Charge defective; Nesmith requires alleged state of mind or dismissal without prejudice
Whether the laser speed reading foundation was properly laid	State satisfied manufacturer-based procedures and training	Foundation insufficient; Assaye requirements not shown	Foundational deficiencies; vacate verdict and dismiss without prejudice; retrial unlikely to cure

State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i 48 (2012) (state-of-mind requirement for charging must alert defense; Nesmith overrules bare absence of mens rea in charging)
State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308 (1996) (strict liability requires explicit language or unequivocal legislative history; absence here)
State v. Rushing, 62 Haw. 102 (1980) (unqualified language alone not controlling for strict liability)
State v. Kikuta, 125 Hawai'i 78 (2011) (failure to raise issue at trial waives on appeal; but some exceptions apply)
State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai'i 131 (1996) (test for strict liability on face of statute)
Assaye v. State, 121 Hawai'i 213 (2009) (foundation requirements for laser speed readings; manufacturer-sanctioned testing and operator training)
State v. Dow, 96 Hawai'i 320 (2001) (trial court not to rely on one piece of evidence if others exist; context matters)
State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawai'i 498 (2002) (appellate ground to affirm on different grounds; waiver principles)