State v. Pratt, 277 P.3d 300

Background

Pratt was cited in 2004 for violating HAR § 13-146-4 in a closed area of Kalalau Valley, Kalalau State Park, Kaua'i.
Hanapi three-prong test requires Pratt to prove he is a native Hawaiian, that the act is a protected traditional practice, and that it occurred on undeveloped land.
Pratt presented testimony and Dr. McGregor as an expert; DLNR witness Wayne Souza testified on park regulations and curatorship program.
The District Court denied Pratt’s motion to dismiss; trial proceeded with a stipulated record and later trial testimony adopting the motion hearing testimony.
The trial court balanced Pratt’s claimed rights against the State’s interest in preserving the wilderness character of Kalalau Valley and found the State’s regulation reasonable; Pratt was convicted on all three citations.
The ICA affirmed Pratt’s conviction; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the native Hawaiian rights defense in criminal cases.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial stipulation to essential facts was valid and binding	Pratt argues the stipulation misstates record facts and should be set aside as plain error	State contends the stipulation was a valid tactical choice and binds the issues	Stipulation valid; no plain error to reverse
Whether Hanapi three-prong test applies to Pratt's defense	Pratt contends he satisfied Hanapi and thus is protected	State argues regulation can still regulate even if Hanapi is met	Hanapi test applicable and satisfied by Pratt on record
Whether balancing under a totality of circumstances governs the outcome	Pratt urges no balancing against State interests beyond Hanapi	State urges balancing supports regulation	Totality of the circumstances balancing required; weighs in favor of State
Whether the State’s concession that Pratt’s actions were traditional native Hawaiian practices binds on appeal	Concession should bind ICA and support a constitutional defense	Concessions do not bind appellate review; independent judgment required	Appellate review may consider concessions; court may independently assess Hanapi factors
Whether Murray-style on-record colloquy was required for waiver of proving elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Waiver via stipulation requires on-record colloquy per Murray	Stipulation reflected defendant’s admission of essential facts; not plain error	Murray waiver concern present; however, record allowed resolution without remand; stipulation valid under context

Key Cases Cited

Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd., 66 Haw. 1, 656 P.2d 745 (Haw. 1982) (balancing of rights on undeveloped land; right to traditional practices varies by land status)
Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 837 P.2d 1247 (Haw. 1992) (expands protection beyond residence areas; lays groundwork for Kalipi balancing)
Public Access Shoreline Hawai`i v. Hawaii County Planning Comm'n, 79 Haw. 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (Haw. 1995) (recognizes State may regulate native Hawaiian rights to exercise them feasibly)
State v. Hanapi, 89 Haw. 177, 970 P.2d 485 (Haw. 1998) (establishes three-prong Hanapi test for criminal defense)
State v. Murray, 116 Haw. 3, 169 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007) (requires on-record colloquy to waive proof of each element beyond reasonable doubt)
PASH (Public Access Shoreline Hawaii) v. Hawaii County Planning Comm'n, 79 Haw. 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (Haw. 1995) (clarifies balance and feasibility in native rights cases)
Pele Defense Fund v. Paty (2)**, 837 P.2d 1247 ((1992)) (see above for context on traditional rights scope)
State v. Ibuos, 75 Haw. 118, 857 P.2d 576 (1993) (on waiver and right to jury trial relevance)
State v. Staley, 1999 (Haw. 1999) (noting independent review for constitutional questions)