 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dwight Dow10/3/1990
inen Supply Co. , 430 U.S. 564, 575, 97 S. Ct. 1349, 1356, 51 L. Ed. 2d 642, 653 (1977).
In Grindles, supra , the State charged the defendant with DUI in violation of HRS § 291-4(a). At trial, the district court bifurcated the hearing over the defendant's objection. The court heard the State's case under HRS § 291-4(a)(1) (driving under the influence) first. The court then asked the defendant to present his defense under HRS § 291-4(a)(1), indicating that if the court determined that the State proved its case under that subsection, it would not permit the State to proceed under HRS § 291-4(a)(2) (driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more). The defendant refused to present any evidence in his defense until the State had presented its entire case. The court found the defendant guilty of HRS § 291-4(a)(1). On appeal, the supreme court condemned the "bifurcating" of the DUI trial on due process grounds. The court also commented:
n the event the defendant is acquitted under § 291-4(a)(1) and the court allows the State to proceed under § 291-4(a)(2), the defendant will have been twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense in violation of article I, section 10 of the Hawaii Constitution and the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
70 Haw. at 533 n.3, 777 P.2d at 1191 n.3.
The supreme court's dictum, which we adopt, is applicable to the case at bar. The trial court acquitted Defendant under HRS § 291-4(a)(1) in the first trial. The prosecution of Defendant under HRS § 291-4(a)(2) in the second trial placed Defendant twice in jeopardy and violated the double jeopardy clauses of both the United States and Hawaii Constitutions.
Reversed.
Disposition
Reversed.
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|