United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Peter D. Jefferson, Defendant-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Cheryl Ann Denno, Defendant-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Natalie Marie Cole, Defendant-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kevin Walker, Defendant-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Sheryl L. Gora, Defendant-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Reginald Moore, Defendant-appellee, 951 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 951 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1991) Submitted Dec. 9, 1991. *Decided Dec. 16, 1991

Before ALDISERT,**  GOODWIN and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM*** 

Peter D. Jefferson, Sheryl L. Gora, Cheryl Ann Denno, Natalie Marie Cole, Reginald Moore, and Kevin Walker were separately charged in federal court with operating an automobile on a military reservation without having no-fault insurance. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 431:10C-104 (Supp.1991) prohibits driving without no-fault insurance. The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, makes it a federal offense to commit any act in a federal enclave if the act is a criminal offense in the surrounding state.

The district court found that the offenses were not criminal under Hawaii law and dismissed the charges. The United States appeals. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

We have already held that if Hawaii specifies that a violation does not constitute a crime, the offense cannot be assimilated under the federal act. United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1990). The government attempts to distinguish Carlson because imprisonment is imposed for second and subsequent offenses, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 431:10C-117; Hawaii treats the offense as serious; in the case of a multiple offender under the statute, mens rea was required, Hawaii v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 669 P.2d 146 (1983); and when read as a whole the scheme is a criminal prohibition with merely a reduced sentence for first offenders.

The government's arguments do not persuade us to depart from the plain reading of the statute. The no-fault statute is written in terms of "violations." Haw.Rev.Stat. § 431:10C-117(a). It provides for a fine upon conviction. Id. The general law of Hawaii states: "A violation does not constitute a crime...." Haw.Rev.Stat § 701-107(5).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4

 **

The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation

 ***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.