State v. Wilson, 413 P.3d 363

Wilson was stopped for driving erratically; officer observed signs of intoxication and she performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for OVUII.
At the station she initially agreed to testing, then refused; she signed MPD forms indicating refusal after being advised of criminal penalties (up to 30 days jail / $1,000 fine) and administrative sanctions.
Wilson was tried in district court, convicted of OVUII and of Refusal to Submit to Testing under HRS §291E-68, and appealed.
After Wilson’s trial, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court decided State v. Won, holding that telling a suspect refusal would bring criminal penalties renders consent to breath testing coerced under the Hawai‘i Constitution.
The legislature later repealed HRS §291E-68 (criminal refusal) after Won; the U.S. Supreme Court in Birchfield later held warrantless breath tests are permissible incident to arrest (but blood tests are not).
The appellate court applied Won to reverse Wilson’s refusal conviction but affirmed her OVUII conviction, rejecting her claim that the court had to colloquy her before accepting counsel’s stipulation to the officer’s sobriety-test qualifications.

Issue	State's Argument	Wilson's Argument	Held
Whether Wilson could be prosecuted for Refusal to Submit to Testing under HRS §291E-68 given Won	State relied on statutory text making refusal a petty misdemeanor and on federal precedent (Birchfield) permitting warrantless breath tests	Wilson argued Won controls: warning of criminal penalties coerced choice and made any refusal prosecution unconstitutional under Hawai‘i Constitution	Reversed refusal conviction: applying Won, criminal penalties could not be imposed where police lacked a warrant or applicable exception, so prosecution for refusal was improper
Whether the trial court erred by accepting counsel’s stipulation to the officer’s field-sobriety-test qualifications without colloquy of defendant	State argued stipulations to witness qualifications are routine tactical decisions by counsel and do not require defendant colloquy unless an essential element or waiver of fundamental right	Wilson argued Murray requires colloquy when defendant stipulates to an essential factual element; she said court should have ensured she personally approved	Affirmed OVUII conviction: stipulation was not to an essential element and El’Ayache permits counsel to agree to such stipulations without defendant colloquy

State v. Won, [citation="137 Hawai'i 330"] (2015) (Hawai‘i Supreme Court held advising suspect of criminal penalties for refusal coerced consent to breath test under Hawai‘i Constitution)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court held warrantless breath tests may be reasonable as search incident to arrest; warrant required for blood tests)
State v. El'Ayache, 62 Haw. 646 (1980) (trial counsel’s tactical stipulations to witness qualifications permissible without defendant colloquy)
State v. Murray, [citation="116 Hawai'i 3"] (2007) (colloquy required where defendant stipulates to an essential element of the offense)