State v. Line, 121 Haw. 74

214 P.3d 613 (2009) · Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi · August 11, 2009 · No. No. 27850

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that unlawful police conduct is not a defense to a charge of hindering prosecution in the first degree when officers act under color of official authority. However, the court determined that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the first-degree conviction because the record did not establish that the defendant knew or believed the underlying offenses were felonies. The court vacated the judgments and remanded for entry of a conviction on the lesser included offense of hindering prosecution in the second degree.

Court
Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi
Writing for the Court
Acoba, J.; Moon, C.J.; Nakayama, J.; Duffy, J.; Alm, Circuit Judge, assigned due to a vacancy
Jurisdiction
Hawaii
Decision date
August 11, 2009
Docket number
No. 27850
Procedural posture
Petition for writ of certiorari reviewing the Intermediate Court of Appeals' affirmance of a circuit-court conviction for hindering prosecution in the first degree.
Standard of review
For sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is viewed in the strongest light for the prosecution, and the question is whether substantial evidence supports every material element of the offense. The court also independently reviewed the legal effect of the conceded instructional and sufficiency errors.
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi.
Parties
Melody C. Line v. State of Hawaiʻi
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal procedurefourth amendmentwarrant requirementappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether unlawful police conduct, including a warrantless and nonexigent entry into a home, is a defense to hindering prosecution under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 710-1029.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Line knew her son was being apprehended for a class A, B, or C felony, as required for hindering prosecution in the first degree.
  3. Whether hindering prosecution in the second degree is a lesser included offense of hindering prosecution in the first degree and whether the case could be remanded for entry of judgment on that offense.

Holdings

  1. Unlawful police conduct is not a defense to a charge of hindering prosecution when the defendant intentionally uses physical force to obstruct officers acting under color of official authority.
  2. The officers' warrantless entry into Line's home was unlawful because no exigent circumstances justified entry and the officers had ample time to obtain an arrest warrant.
  3. The evidence was insufficient to sustain Line's conviction for hindering prosecution in the first degree because there was no evidence that she knew her son was being apprehended for a class A, B, or C felony.
  4. Hindering prosecution in the second degree is a lesser included offense of hindering prosecution in the first degree, and the case may be remanded for entry of judgment on the lesser included offense where the evidence supports it.

Key quotations

We hold that (1) unlawful police conduct is not a defense to a charge of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree under HRS § 710-1029, however, (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for such an offense in this case, and therefore, the April 28, 2009 judgment of the ICA and the March 3, 2006 judgment of conviction of the court are vacated; but (3) the case is remanded to the court for entry of a judgment of conviction on the lesser included offense of Hindering Prosecution in the Second Degree. (at 615)
To the contrary, the 63 hours between the inception of probable cause and the July 15, 2005 attempted arrest afforded police ample time to obtain an arrest warrant and they were plainly required to do so before invading Petitioner's home. (at 624)

Factual background

Police discovered Line's son with a methamphetamine smoking pipe and a small packet outside his residence but did not immediately arrest him. Three days later, officers without an arrest or search warrant pursued him into Line's home. Line physically blocked an officer's entry, refused repeated commands to move, struggled with the officers, and grabbed one officer's shirt, tearing the sleeve. The officers were acting under color of official authority, but they did not tell Line that her son was being pursued for felony offenses.

Procedural history

Line was convicted by a jury of hindering prosecution in the first degree and sentenced to probation; she was acquitted of assault against a law enforcement officer in the second degree. The circuit court denied her motion in limine challenging the warrantless police entry into her home. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reversed the ICA, vacated the felony conviction, and remanded for entry of judgment on the lesser included misdemeanor offense of hindering prosecution in the second degree.

Remand instructions

Vacate the ICA judgment and the circuit court's judgment of conviction for hindering prosecution in the first degree, and remand to the circuit court for entry of a judgment of conviction on the lesser included offense of hindering prosecution in the second degree under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1030.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…