State v. Kiyuna
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Hawaii?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Hawaii. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his Miranda rights and statutory right to counsel were violated when, after being taken into custody, where he was asked without Miranda warnings if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test; and (2) the district court improperly allowed the State to amend its complaint to alleged the requisite mens rea for the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) insofar as the charge was properly amended and Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, his OVUII conviction still stands; and (2) the district court properly permitted the State to amend Defendant’s charge to allege mens rea.
Download PDF
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER SCWC-12-0000682 *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000682 03-MAR-2016 09:19 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LINN M. KIYUNA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000682; CASE NO. 1DTA-11-05236) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Linn M. Kiyuna seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (“ICA”) May 5, 2015 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its April 7, 2015 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s (“district court”) July 6, 2012 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (“district court judgment”).1 The district court found Kiyuna guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (“OVUII”), in violation of Hawai i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) 1 The Honorable Lono Lee presided. *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (4) (2007).2 *** This court accepted Kiyuna’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, and we now affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal and the district court judgment. On certiorari, Kiyuna contends that (1) his Miranda rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Hawai i Constitution were violated when, while in custody, he was asked by the police, without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test, which was likely to incriminate himself; (2) his statutory right to an attorney was violated; and (3) the district court improperly allowed the State to amend its complaint to allege the requisite mens rea for the HRS § 291E61(a)(1) charge. In this court’s recent summary disposition order in State v. Kam, we held that “the ICA correctly concluded that the district court properly permitted the State to amend” an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge to allege the requisite mens rea. 2 State HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and (4) provide in relevant part: (a) 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; [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 *** v. Kam, SCWC-12-0000897 (Haw. Feb. 25, 2016) (SDO) at 2. Accordingly, the district court properly permitted the State to amend Kiyuna’s HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge to allege mens rea. Kiyuna was convicted for violating both HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(4). Either subsection can 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)(1) charge was properly amended, and insofar as Kiyuna does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for violating HRS § 291E-61(a)(1), his OVUII conviction still stands. There is no need for this court to address his argument that the blood test results supporting his HRS § 291E-61(a)(4) conviction were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights and/or his statutory right to counsel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s May 5, 2015 Judgment on Appeal and the district court judgment are affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 3, 2016. Jonathan Burge for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Brian R. Vincent for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 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.
