State v. Walker, 273 P.3d 1161

Walker was charged with Count I for Habitually Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (HOVUII) arising from an April 17, 2008 incident in Honolulu.
The information alleged Walker as a habitual operator under HRS 291E-61.5(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A); did not expressly allege three prior OVUII convictions within ten years as an attendant circumstance.
Walker moved to suppress a custodial statement about drinking; circuit court denied the motion after findings of voluntariness and other collateral determinations.
At trial, Walker challenged the sufficiency of the charge and objected to HGN evidence and other trial testimony; he was convicted of Count I along with Counts II and III in concurrent proceedings.
The ICA reversed and remanded to dismiss Count I without prejudice for lack of a jurisdictionally sufficient lesser-included charge, citing Wheeler and related cases; Chief Judge Nakamura dissented on the remand reasoning.
The Hawaii Supreme Court held that remand for judgment and resentencing must be based on a jurisdictionally valid lesser-included charge and that Walker’s HOVUII charge did not adequately allege the attendant circumstance under Wheeler; the ICA’s remand was thus proper to dismiss Count I without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ICA erred by remanding to dismiss Count I without prejudice	Walker asserts remand was improper when sufficient evidence or proper lesser charge could support conviction.	State maintains remand was proper because the charge lacked essential attendant elements under Wheeler.	Affirmed; remand without prejudice was proper due to jurisdictional defect in the charge.
Whether HOVUII charge adequately alleged an attendant circumstance	Walker argues the information sufficiently tracked the statute and notified defenses.	State contends the charge failed to allege three prior OVUII convictions within ten years as required.	Charge deficient; required attendant circumstance not alleged; remand appropriate.
Whether the circuit court erred in admitting or considering HGN evidence and Walker's custodial statement	Walker challenges admissibility of HGN results and suppression of his statement.	State maintains any errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other overwhelming evidence.	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reversible error in suppression or HGN admissibility for this conviction.

State v. Wheeler, 121 Haw. 383 (Haw. 2009) (establishes public-road attendant circumstance requirement and liberal construction limits)
State v. Ruggiero, 114 Haw. 227 (Haw. 2007) (remand/resentencing considerations for lesser-included offenses; first/second offender distinctions)
State v. Kekuewa, 114 Haw. 411 (Haw. 2007) (remand for conviction and resentencing when charging defects; five-year period issues)
State v. Mita, 124 Haw. 385 (Haw. 2010) (distinguishes Wheeler’s definition issues by comparing ROH animal nuisance to OVUII)
State v. Stan’s Contracting, Inc., 111 Haw. 17 (Haw. 2006) (statutory description requirements for charging instrument; mandatory elements)
State v. Elliott, 77 Haw. 309 (Haw. 1994) (liberal construction principle for charging language; notice sufficiency)
State v. Sprattling, 99 Haw. 312 (Haw. 2002) (liberal construction framework for charges challenged on appeal)
State v. Tominiko, 126 Haw. 68 (Haw. 2011) (OVUII charge sufficiency under liberal construction; public-road issue discussed)
State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293 (Haw. 1984) (custodial interrogation and Miranda considerations framework)