 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Nakata8/2/1994
tent in Act 128 is "constitutionally suspect" because it conflicts with the intent set forth in Act 188, 1990 Haw. Sess. Laws 399. The preamble to Act 188 explained that "the legislature finds that driving under the influence of alcohol poses a very real and serious danger to the safety and welfare of the people of this State and requires stronger measures to ensure that people who drink do not drive and that those who do are taken off the road promptly." Act 188, 1990 Haw. Sess. Laws at 399.
We are not persuaded by appellants' reference to Act 188 because the intent set forth in Act 128, at issue here, is clear. The 1993 Legislature specifically passed Act 128 in response to Jordan and the overwhelming backlog of cases burdening the judiciary. Moreover, Act 188 has no bearing on the legislative mandate expressed in Act 128, nor does it distinguish the "real and serious dangers" posed by repeat offenders as does Act 128.
In response to appellants' arguments, the prosecution points out that HRS § 806-60 (1985) specifically defines "serious crime" in a jury trial context to mean "any crime for which the defendant may be imprisoned for six months or more." HRS § 806-60. Given the statutory definition, the prosecution argues that there is no right to a jury trial under HRS § 291-4 because the maximum term of imprisonment is six months regardless of the number of repeat offenses (and that therefore Jordan and O'Brien were wrongly decided). However, the definition does not apply in the current context.
HRS § 806-60 provides:
Jury of twelve required. Any defendant charged with a serious crime shall have the right to trial by a jury of twelve members. "Serious crime" means any crime for which the defendant may be imprisoned for six months or more.
Section 806-60 was promulgated "to conform the Hawaii Revised Statutes to the Hawaii State Constitution as amended by the constitutional convention of 1978." Act 89, 1979 Haw. Sess. Laws 173. Thus, section 806 codifies article I, § 14, of the Hawaii Constitution. Article I, § 14 states in pertinent part:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury . . . . Juries, where the crime charged is serious, shall consist of twelve persons.
(Emphasis added). The emphasized provision was added during the 1978 Constitutional Convention in response to Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446, 90 S. Ct. 1893 (1970) (upholding a Florida law providing for a six-person jury in a non-capital criminal case). See Committee of the Whole Debates, reprinted in 2 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1978 [hereinafter Proceedings] at 679-84.
When adding the new provision, the constitutional convention delegates were not addressing the serious versus petty distinction at issue in this case. They were merely focusing on the number of members on a jury; the right to a jury trial itself was presumed to exist. For example, when Delegate Penebacker introduced the relevant motion, he stated:
The concept of the 12-person jury is an integral part of our judicial system. . . . Reducing the number of jurors in serious criminal cases will have an adverse effect on the purpose for which a jury is required by our judicial system. . . . The fewer the jurors, the more likely that these cases will be tried on the streets and in the media. We must protect against this. The 12-person jury in serious criminal cases would do much to insure that minority opinions are heard and that the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|