State v. Nakano

Summary

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court addresses whether the State could prosecute Daniel S. Nakano under an alternative statutory method of proving operating a vehicle under the influence after his conditional no-contest plea. The court holds that the complaint was defective as to the method requiring proof of impairment because it omitted mens rea, and that ambiguity in the plea agreement must be construed in Nakano’s favor. The court affirms vacatur of the district court’s judgment and precludes prosecution under the alternative method on remand.

Holdings

1. The State may not prosecute Nakano under the HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) method of proof because the conditional plea agreement is ambiguous and must be construed in Nakano's favor, resulting in the State's relinquishment of that method of proof.
2. The HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient because the complaint omitted a required mens rea allegation, and the charge must be dismissed without prejudice on remand.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State could prosecute Nakano under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) after the district court's judgment under subsection (a)(1) was vacated and the plea agreement was ambiguous as to subsection (a)(3).
2. Whether allowing further prosecution under subsection (a)(3) would violate Nakano's due process rights by permitting the State to avoid its obligations under the conditional plea agreement.

Disposition

remanded