State v. Ui., 418 P.3d 628

April 13, 2011: Ui was involved in a roll-over vehicle collision in Kona; she was unconscious and hospital staff drew two vials of blood pursuant to HRS § 291E-21.
State charged Ui with OVUII under HRS § 291E-61(a) and driving without a license under HRS § 286-102(b); Ui pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a bench trial.
During the State’s case, defense counsel orally stipulated that Ui’s blood was drawn timely and properly and that the BAC was 0.156; the court accepted the stipulation without engaging Ui in an on-the-record colloquy and without a written stipulation.
The district court convicted Ui of OVUII and driving without a license; sentence was imposed. Ui appealed; the ICA vacated the driving-without-license conviction but affirmed the OVUII conviction based on the stipulated BAC.
Ui sought certiorari; Supreme Court directed supplemental briefing on (1) applicability of State v. Won to the blood draw and (2) whether the district court erred under State v. Murray by failing to conduct a colloquy and whether plain error review should apply.
The Supreme Court held Won inapplicable, reaffirmed Murray’s on-the-record colloquy requirement before accepting any stipulation to an element of an offense, rejected a trial-strategy exception, found plain error in the district court’s failure to colloquy Ui, and vacated Ui’s OVUII conviction based on the stipulated BAC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of State v. Won to blood draw	State: Ui not similarly situated to Won; no implied-consent form or coercive request for consent here	Ui: Won renders BAC testing inadmissible when consent coerced; should vacate conviction	Court: Won inapplicable—Ui’s blood draw was not based on a consent coerced by an implied-consent form
Requirement of on-the-record colloquy for stipulations proving an element	State: stipulation was tactical/for efficiency; trial-strategy can excuse colloquy	Ui: Murray requires the defendant personally be engaged in colloquy before waiving element proof	Court: Murray requires an on-the-record colloquy; no trial-strategy exception; counsel cannot waive fundamental rights for a defendant
Whether district court erred in accepting stipulated BAC without colloquy	State: counsel said Ui reviewed stipulation; evidence of intoxication existed; stipulation harmless	Ui: court never ascertained Ui’s personal, knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver; stipulation waived an element	Court: district court erred—no colloquy occurred, so stipulation improperly accepted
Whether error is plain and requires reversal	State: error harmless beyond reasonable doubt or not cognizable as plain error	Ui: failure to colloquy affected substantial, fundamental rights and warrants plain-error correction	Court: error was plain, not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and warrants vacatur of OVUII conviction based on the stipulated BAC

State v. Murray, [citation="116 Hawai'i 3, 169 P.3d 955"] (Haw. 2007) (trial court must conduct an on-the-record colloquy with defendant before accepting stipulation to an element of an offense)
State v. Won, [citation="137 Hawai'i 330, 372 P.3d 1065"] (Haw. 2015) (implied-consent form that threatens criminal penalties renders consent coercive and invalid under Hawai'i Constitution)
State v. Apollonio, [citation="130 Hawai'i 353, 311 P.3d 676"] (Haw. 2013) (charging document must allege requisite mens rea when law does not specify it)
State v. Nesmith, [citation="127 Hawai'i 48, 276 P.3d 617"] (Haw. 2012) (HRS § 291E-61(a)(4) is a strict-liability method of proof based on BAC)
State v. Miller, [citation="122 Hawai'i 92, 223 P.3d 157"] (Haw. 2010) (plain-error review appropriate where errors affect substantial rights and the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)