State v. Thompson.
150 Haw. 262
| Haw. | 2021Background
- The State charged Corey Thompson (family/household abuse) by complaint that bore only the deputy prosecutor’s signature and contained no complainant’s oath or declaration in lieu of an affidavit.
- The family court clerk issued a penal summons based on that complaint, and Thompson appeared.
- Thompson moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint violated HRS § 805-1 (requires complainant’s oath or a declaration), so the penal summons issuance and arraignment were improper.
- The family court granted the motion and dismissed without prejudice.
- The ICA held the complaint failed to meet HRS § 805-1 but ruled a noncompliant complaint could still support a penal summons and that no affidavit was required for arraignment.
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the ICA: a complaint used to seek a penal summons must comply with HRS § 805-1 (complainant’s oath or a declaration under court rules), and the defective complaint justified dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a complaint used to obtain a penal summons must satisfy HRS § 805-1 | HRS § 805-1 is ambiguous as to which “rules of court” apply; HRPP Rule 7(d)’s requirements for complaints are controlling and the prosecutor’s signature suffices | HRS § 805-1 requires the complaint be subscribed by the complainant under oath or made by declaration in accordance with court rules; the State did neither | Held: HRS § 805-1 applies to all complaints; complaint must be signed by complainant under oath or accompanied by a declaration in conformity with HRPP Rule 47(d) |
| Whether a district court may issue a penal summons on a complaint that does not comply with HRS § 805-1 | HRPP Rule 9 distinguishes summons from warrants and does not require probable cause for a summons, so a noncompliant complaint may still support a penal summons | A penal summons may not issue on a fatally defective complaint that fails to meet HRS § 805-1 | Held: A district court may not issue a penal summons on a complaint that fails to comply with HRS § 805-1; statutory compliance is prerequisite |
| Whether failure to provide an affidavit/declaration made arraignment improper under HRPP Rule 5(b)(1) | HRPP Rule 5(b)(1) requires production of affidavits only when they exist; no affidavit existed so arraignment was proper | Absence of the required sworn complaint or declaration made arraignment improper | Held: Because the complaint failed to meet HRS § 805-1, the arraignment was improper (the State must supply the required oath/declaration) |
| Whether dismissing the complaint without prejudice was an abuse of discretion | If no probable cause, HRPP Rule 5(b)(2) limits relief to release on recognizance, so dismissal was improper | The court dismissed for statutory noncompliance under HRS § 805-1, independent of probable cause rules | Held: Dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion; dismissal was proper because the complaint was fatally defective under HRS § 805-1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Territory v. Williams, 41 Haw. 348 (Haw. Terr. 1956) (historical precedent on complaint formalities)
- State v. Knoeppel, 71 Haw. 168, 785 P.2d 1321 (1990) (absence of required signature rendered complaint fatally defective)
- State v. Sylva, 61 Haw. 385, 605 P.2d 496 (1980) (courts must follow plain statutory language)
- State v. Wilson, 6 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (illustrative authority that defective complaint may be dismissed and proceedings reinitiated if appropriate)