State v. Slavik., 150 Haw. 343

Background

On June 20, 2018, Hawaiʻi County officers found Nikolaus Slavik asleep in a vehicle; a homemade .22 pistol lay on the passenger seat under his right hand and a single .22 round was found on his person. No firearm permits or registrations were found in Slavik's name.
Slavik was charged with multiple firearms offenses: Count 1 (carrying/possessing a loaded firearm on a public highway), Count 2 (failure to procure a permit to acquire ownership), Count 3 (failure to register a firearm within five days of acquisition), and Count 5 (failure to confine/place to keep ammunition).
Slavik moved to dismiss Counts 1 and 5 for insufficient mens rea pleading; the trial court denied the motion. The State also sought to impeach Slavik with a prior theft conviction; the court allowed it if Slavik testified and proper foundation were laid.
At trial Slavik waived testimony, the jury convicted on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5, and he was sentenced; Slavik appealed raising four errors.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held: Counts 1 and 5 defective for failing to allege required state of mind (vacated and to be dismissed without prejudice); Counts 2 and 3 lacked sufficient evidence of ownership/acquisition and were reversed. The ICA did not reach all claimed instructional errors because disposition of counts made them unnecessary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of mens rea pleading for Counts 1 & 5	Statutes are silent; default mens rea (HRS § 702-204) applies and charging language was adequate	Counts failed to allege required state of mind that the object was a firearm (Count 1) or failed to allege mens rea for failure to carry ammunition in an enclosed container (Count 5)	Count 1 defective for omitting scienter re firearm — vacated and dismissed without prejudice. Count 5 also defective for failing to allege mens rea re enclosed-container element — dismissed without prejudice.
Motion in limine to admit prior theft conviction for impeachment	Prior theft conviction impeaches credibility; State asserted conviction existed and sought admission under HRE 404(b)/609	The theft disposition was not a final judgment at time represented; theft is not per se a crime of dishonesty and State failed to show circumstances making it probative of veracity	Trial court erred in granting motion; State failed to show final conviction and failed to establish theft was a crime of dishonesty or otherwise probative for impeachment.
Sufficiency of evidence to prove "acquired ownership" (Counts 2 & 3)	Possession (exclusive/control) supports inference of ownership; absence of countervailing proof supports conviction	Possession alone is insufficient to prove acquisition/ownership; State produced no evidence of acquisition, title, transfer, or registration notice period	Evidence of mere possession, without more, is insufficient to prove acquisition/ownership under HRS chapter 134; convictions on Counts 2 and 3 reversed for insufficiency.
Jury instructions (various)	Instructions given were adequate	Instructions were confusing, modified from standard, and prejudicially insufficient	ICA declined to resolve instructional errors on appeal because convictions were reversed/vacated on other grounds; noted instructions were difficult to follow but disposition made review unnecessary.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawaiʻi 87, 997 P.2d 13 (2000) (two-pronged analysis for possession: knowing control of object and mens rea as to the object's illegal qualities)
State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawaiʻi 48, 276 P.3d 617 (2012) (mens rea is an essential fact that must be pled to give fair notice)
State v. Mita, 124 Hawaiʻi 385, 245 P.3d 458 (2010) (standards for sufficiency of a criminal charge)
State v. Apollonio, 130 Hawaiʻi 353, 311 P.3d 676 (2013) (a charge missing required mens rea cannot be reasonably construed to state an offense and must be dismissed)
State v. Pacheco, 96 Hawaiʻi 83, 26 P.3d 572 (2001) (theft is not per se a "crime of dishonesty" for impeachment; prosecution must show circumstances making it probative of veracity)
State v. Bumanglag, 63 Haw. 596, 634 P.2d 80 (1981) (due process requires a natural, rational evidentiary relation between proven facts and the ultimate fact inferred)
State v. Cuevas, 53 Haw. 110, 488 P.2d 322 (1971) (prosecution bears burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Wheeler, 121 Hawaiʻi 383, 219 P.3d 1170 (2009) (when statute plainly sets out elements, charging in statutory language is sufficient)