State v. Mita, 124 Haw. 385

Mita was charged with Animal Nuisance under ROH 7-2.3 for barking dogs.
An oral charge referencing ROH 7-2.2 accompanied the citation; Mita objected to lack of specific notice of which subsection.
District court convicted after bench trial; evidence showed neighbors heard barking on June 3, 2008.
ICA Summary Disposition Order held the charge insufficient under Wheeler and vacated/dismissed without prejudice.
Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding the citation and oral charge given fair notice and did not require ROH 7-2.2’s definition to be charged as an element; remanded for other issues.
Dissent by Acoba argued Wheeler applied and the charge failed to allege essential elements; otherwise, the majority’s construction risked vagueness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the oral charge plus citation gave fair notice of the offense	State argued the charge tracked 7-2.3 and the definition in 7-2.2 did not create a separate element	Mita contended the charge failed to specify which act within 7-2.2 was charged	Yes; sufficient notice when considering both instruments
Whether 7-2.2’s definition creates an additional essential element	State discharged burden by alleging 7-2.3 and relying on 7-2.2 as definitional	Nura not intended to add elements; Wheeler requires define elements not provided	No new essential element required; 7-2.2 does not add an element here
HRPP Rule 7(a) allows citation and oral charge to comprise the complaint	Rule 7(a) permits combination for offenses under six months and citation	Whether combination suffices depends on essential-elements notice	Yes; together they provided the essential elements and notice
Is Wheeler controlling, making the instant charge defective	Wheeler distinguished by common understanding and lack of definitional notice	7-2.2 is commonly understood; Wheeler inapplicable	Wheeler distinguished; not controlling here
Was the charge defective for lack of specificity as to which act in 7-2.2 was charged	Not required; 7-2.3 references 7-2.2; citation and oral charge suffice	Charge must descends to particulars; omission prejudiced defense	Not defective; fair notice given

State v. Wheeler, 121 Hawai`i 383, 219 P.3d 1170 (2009) (held that an oral charge needs to include attendant elements defined by statute)
State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw. 279, 567 P.2d 1242 (1977) (jurisdictional defect for failure to state an offense)
Israel v. State, 78 Hawai`i 66, 890 P.2d 303 (1995) (generic terms must state species and particulars)
Elliott v. State, 77 Hawai`i 309, 884 P.2d 372 (1994) (omission of essential element invalidates charge)
Nobriga v. State App., 10 Haw.App. 353, 873 P.2d 110 (1994) (ROH 7-2.2/7-2.3 interplay; exceptions other defenses)
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 106? (Note: typical citation 418 U.S. 106) (1974) (obscenity term sufficiency of notice; not controlling but cited for comparison)
State v. Beltran, 116 Hawai`i 146, 172 P.3d 458 (2007) (void-for-vagueness; broad regulatory language may be unconstitutional)
Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S. Ct. 1686 (1971) (void-for-vagueness; actionable standard problems)
State v. Bayly, 118 Hawai`i 1, 185 P.3d 186 (2008) (constitutional construction to preserve validity)