State v. Hitchcock

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reviewed Sean K. Hitchcock’s conviction for illegal camping under Revised Ordinances of Honolulu § 10-1.2(a)(13). The court concluded that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence that Hitchcock camped in an area not designated as a campground and reversed the trial court’s judgment and sentence. The opinion also addresses the sufficiency of the oral charge and the asserted choice-of-evils and constitutional defenses.

Holdings

1. The oral charge was sufficient. Although it used the word "area" instead of "park," the charge, construed as a whole and in light of the information supplied to Hitchcock before appeal, reasonably charged illegal camping under ROH § 10-1.2(a)(13), and Hitchcock failed to show prejudice.
2. The evidence was insufficient to support Hitchcock's conviction because Kea'au Beach Park was designated as a campground, including on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The prohibition on camping on those days restricted use under the permit but did not change the park's designation as a campground.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the oral charge was fatally defective because it alleged camping in an area not designated as a campground rather than camping at a park not designated as a campground.
2. Whether substantial evidence established the attendant circumstance that Kea'au Beach Park was not designated as a campground on the date of the alleged offense.
3. Whether the trial court should have applied the choice-of-evils defense.
4. Whether Revised Ordinances of Honolulu § 10-1.2(a)(13) was unconstitutional as applied because it was vague, overbroad, or constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Disposition

reversed