State v. Padilla

Annotate this Case

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.

Download PDF

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30719 30-APR-2012 08:33 AM NO. SCWC-30719 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO PADILLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30719; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-00147) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.; with Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting) Petitioner Alejandro Padilla (“Padilla”) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s August 2, 2011 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 29, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s July 21, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The District Court adjudged Padilla guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3)(2007).1 We accepted Padilla’s application for writ of certiorari and now affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal. On certiorari, Padilla contends that the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in either an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) or an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge. In State v. Nesmith, we recently held that (1) mens rea must be alleged in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation; and (2) mens rea need not be alleged (or proven) in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge, as the legislative intent to impose absolute liability for an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) offense plainly appears. Hawai#i ___, ___ P.3d ____ (2012). State v. Nesmith, ____ Accordingly, the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Padilla’s HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea. 1 HRS § 291E-61(a) provided, at the time of the alleged offense, the following: A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle: (1) While under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair the person’s normal mental faculties or ability to care for the person and guard against casualty; (2) While under the influence of any drug that impairs the person’s ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner; (3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath; or (4) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters or cubic centimeters of blood. 2 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** However, the District Court adjudged Padilla guilty of violating both HRS §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) can each serve as the basis for a conviction under HRS § 291E-61. See State v. Grindles, 70 Haw. 528, 530-31, 777 P.2d 1187, 1189-90 (1989); State v. Caleb, 79 Hawai#i 336, 339, 902 P.2d 971, 974 (1995); State v. Mezurashi, 77 Hawai#i 94, 98, 881 P.2d 1240, 1244 (1994). Insofar as the HRS § 291E- 61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Padilla does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, his conviction still stands. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 30, 2012. Timothy I. MacMaster for petitioner/ defendant-appellant /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Keith M. Kaneshiro, Prosecuting Attorney, and Delanie D. Prescott-Tate, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent/plaintiffappellee /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 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.