 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Nakata8/2/1994
pending first-offense DUI cases.
We examined the 1990 amendments in State v. Jordan, 72 Haw. 597, 825 P.2d 1065 (1992), and held that, despite the reduced maximum prison sentence for first- and second-offense DUI from 180 days to thirty and sixty days, respectively, DUI remained a serious crime to which the right to a jury trial attached. Id. at 601, 825 P.2d at 1068. The 1993 legislature promulgated Act 128 partially in response to Jordan. In passing Act 128 and providing for its retroactive application, the legislature stated:
It is the intent of the legislature that individuals charged with the offense of as a first time offender shall not be entitled to a jury trial.
It is the intent of the legislature that the reduced penalties provided for in the Act apply to all pending first offense cases. The legislature further intends that by making the reduced penalties provided for in this Act retroactive to pending cases, it be made clear that such first offenders are not entitled to a jury trial, as the offense is a "petty offense" in the constitutional sense.
Act 128, 1993 Haw. Sess. Laws at 179-80.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The issues presented by the questions reserved pursuant to HRAP 15 are questions of law. We review questions of law under the right/wrong standard. In re Holt, 75 Haw. 224, 232, 857 P.2d 1355, 1359, reconsideration denied, Haw. , 863 P.2d 989 (1993).
A writ of mandamus is "an extraordinary remedy that is usually not issued unless the petitioner demonstrates: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; and (2) a lack of other means to adequately redress the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action." Tanaka v. Nagata, 76 Haw. 32, 35, 868 P.2d 450, 453 (1994) (citation omitted).
Legislative enactments are ordinarily presumed constitutional. Pray v. Judicial Selection Comm'n, 75 Haw. 333, 340, 861 P.2d 723, 727 (1993). In the face of the presumption, a party challenging a statute has the burden of proving unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt; that is, the constitutional defect must be clear, manifest, and unmistakable. Id.
III. Discussion
We begin by analyzing the first reserved question under the jury trial provisions of both the United States and Hawaii Constitutions. We then analyze the question of applying Act 128 retroactively. Finally, we address appellants' equal protection and separation of powers arguments.
A. The First Reserved Question
Whether the amendments to the sentencing provisions of HRS [§ ] 291-4 provided in Act 128, Session Laws of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1993, effective May 21, 1993, eliminate the right to jury trial for defendants charged with a first offense under HRS § 291-4.
1. Federal Constitutional Analysis
The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution's sixth amendment right to a jury trial more narrowly than this court has interpreted the Hawaii Constitution's counterpart, article I, § 14. Compare Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 103 L. Ed. 2d 550, 109 S. Ct. 1289 (1989) (no right to a jury trial for a DUI charge with maximum possible prison sentence of six months) with State v. O'Brien, 68 Haw. 39, 704 P.2d 883 (1985) (right to jury trial for DUI offense with ma
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.
|
|