State v. Vaimili

135 Haw. 492 (2015) · Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi · June 29, 2015 · No. SCWC-12-0000115

Summary

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reviewed Joseph Vaimili’s convictions for kidnapping, first-degree terroristic threatening, first-degree promoting prostitution, and carrying or using a firearm during a separate felony. The court addressed whether disjunctive charging rendered the amended complaint defective, whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the charges, and whether the circuit court properly conducted the trial in Vaimili’s absence. The opinion was issued on June 29, 2015, on certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

Holdings

  1. A charge under a single statutory subsection may be worded disjunctively in the statutory language when the charged acts are reasonably related and the charge provides the defendant sufficient notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. Vaimili's amended complaint satisfied that standard and was not defective.
  2. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the disjunctive charging language because the charges were legally sufficient and no potentially meritorious defense was impaired.
  3. For purposes of HRPP Rule 43(b)(1), trial commences when prospective jurors are administered an oath before voir dire, rather than when the selected jury is sworn.
  4. A trial court may proceed with trial when a defendant who was initially present voluntarily absents himself, but the court must balance the defendant's right to confront witnesses against the public interest before proceeding. The circuit court properly applied that balancing approach and did not violate Vaimili's right to be present.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended complaint was defective because the State charged alternative acts and states of mind in the disjunctive.
  2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the disjunctive charging language.
  3. When trial commences for purposes of HRPP Rule 43(b)(1).
  4. Whether proceeding with trial in Vaimili's absence violated HRPP Rule 43 or his constitutional right to be present.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (20)

  • State v. Codiamat, 131 Hawaiʻi 220, 317 P.3d 664 (2013)(followed and clarified)
  • State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawaiʻi 504, 78 P.3d 317 (2003)(followed)
  • State v. Caraballo, 62 Haw. 309, 615 P.2d 91 (1980)(followed and distinguished)
  • State v. Okumura, 58 Haw. 425, 570 P.2d 848 (1977)(followed)
  • State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 831 P.2d 924 (1992)(followed through Codiamat)
  • State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw. 279, 567 P.2d 1242 (1977)(followed through Codiamat)
  • State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawaiʻi 48, 276 P.3d 617 (2012)(followed through Codiamat)
  • State v. Sprattling, 99 Hawaiʻi 312, 55 P.3d 276 (2002)(followed)
  • State v. Quitog, 85 Hawaiʻi 128, 938 P.2d 559 (1997)(followed)
  • State v. Rauch, 94 Hawaiʻi 315, 13 P.3d 324 (2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…