State v. Maharaj
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
ACOBA, J.
We hold that the charge for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, (OVUII), HRS § 261E-61(a)(l) (2007) was insufficient because Respondent/Plaintiff-Ap-pellee the State of Hawai'i (the State) failed to allege the requisite states of mind of intentional, knowing, or reckless in the charge, State v. Apollonio, 130 Hawai'i 353, 358-59, 311 P.3d 676, 681-82 (2013); see also State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i 48, 54, 276 P.3d 617, 623 (2012) 1 and because the charge failed to allege an “essential fact[] constituting the offense charged.” Hawai'i Rules…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Henderson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- State v. VlietHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. ElliottHawaii Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. MottaHawaii Supreme Court · 1983
- Chun v. Employees' Retirement SystemHawaii Supreme Court · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State of Tennessee v. Christopher MinorTennessee Supreme Court · 2018
- State of Tennessee v. Christopher Minor - ConcurringTennessee Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. PaiHawaii Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. PierceHawaii Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. RiveraHawaii Supreme Court · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.