 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Nakata8/2/1994
t-offense DUI conviction under Hawaii law includes: (1) minimum fourteen-hour attendance at alcohol rehabilitation classes; (2) a ninety-day driver's license suspension; (3) community service; (4) a fine of between $150 and $1,000; (5) compliance with HRS § 287-20 (Supp. 1992) (requiring proof of financial responsibility before reapplying for driver's license); and (6) collateral consequences such as payment of costs for most of the penalties. Nachtigal clearly suggests that Hawaii's authorized maximum penalties and the list of additional mix for a first-offense DUI do not overcome the federal presumption that such offense is petty. See Nachtigal, U.S. at , 113 S. Ct. at 1074 ("it is a rare case where 'a legislature packs an offense it deems "serious" with onerous penalties that nonetheless do not puncture the 6-month incarceration line'" (citing Blanton, 489 U.S. at 543)).
However, appellants argue that an increased insurance rate based on a DUI conviction is a severe penalty, which adds to the "mix" and results in the offense being constitutionally serious. Indeed, the trial court in this case found that automobile insurance rates increase dramatically for a person convicted of DUI. Despite such determination, we do not consider increased rates by private insurance companies to be a statutory "penalty" for violating HRS § 291-4. See Blanton, 489 U.S. at 543 n.8 ("In performing this analysis, only penalties resulting from state action, e.g., those mandated by statute or regulation, should be considered."). Although appellants cite to HRS chapter 287's provisions requiring proof of financial responsibility, insurance companies would likely raise insurance rates regardless of whether a driver convicted of DUI is required to comply with chapter 287 because of the actuarially increased risk that such a driver poses.
Accordingly, we hold that there is no right to a jury trial under the United States Constitution for a first-offense DUI under HRS § 291-4, as amended by Act 128.
2. State Constitutional Analysis
The Constitution of the State of Hawaii provides, in pertinent part, that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed[.]" Haw. Const. art I, § 14. "Although the right to a jury trial is of great importance, we have also recognized that it is not an absolute right. Specifically, we have held that a defendant charged with a petty crime does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial." State v. Wilson, 75 Haw. 68, 73, 856 P.2d 1240, 1243 (citations omitted), reconsideration denied, Haw. , 861 P.2d 735 (1993). Thus, the issue is whether a first-offense DUI, as reconfigured by Act 128, is a petty or serious crime under the Hawaii Constitution.
We analyze three factors to determine whether an offense is constitutionally petty or serious: "(1) treatment of the offense at common law; (2) the gravity of the offense; and (3) the authorized penalty." Wilson, 75 Haw. at 74, 856 P.2d at 1244 (citing O'Brien, 68 Haw. at 41-43, 704 P.2d at 885-87).
Under the first factor, we consider the "traditional treatment" of the offense and "whether offense was indictable at common law, triable at common law by a jury, or tried summarily without a jury." Id.
Under the second factor, we consider whether an offense "affects the public at large, reflec
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.
|
|