Justia.com Opinion Summary:Download as PDF
Petitioner Alejandro Padilla was adjudged guilty by the district court of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge, and therefore, Padilla's section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea; but (2) insofar as the section 291E-61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Padilla did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, Padilla's conviction still stood.Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I ,
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(ICA NO. 30719; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-00147)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna JJ.)
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Alejandro Padilla’s
application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 26, 2011,
is hereby accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be
heard in this case.
Any party may, within ten days and pursuant
to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move
for retention of oral argument.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 21, 2011.
Timothy MacMaster for
petitioner/defendantappellant on the
Mark E. Recktenwald
Paula A. Nakayama
Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
James E. Duffy, Jr.
Sabrina S. McKenna