 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Engcabo12/18/1989
Brian S. Engcabo was convicted of driving under the influence of a drug in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-7.
The evidence adduced in a bench trial was that police officer Glen Kamanao observed Engcabo driving a pickup truck in an erratic manner. The vehicle was veering over two lanes and onto the shoulder of the roadway. Kamanao therefore activated his siren and caused Engcabo to stop. When Kamanao approached Engcabo, he noticed that Engcabo's eyes were bloodshot and the pupils constricted, although Kamanao did not detect any sign of alcohol. Engcabo's speech was slurred. Also, as Engcabo handed over his driver's license as requested, the officer noticed three distinct puncture marks with dried coagulated blood residue on the inside of Engcabo's left arm. Upon exiting his vehicle, Engcabo was unsteady on his feet and unable to walk straight.
Kamanao placed Engcabo under arrest, then proceeded to move and secure Engcabo's pickup which was parked partially on the roadway. When Kamanao entered the pickup, he noticed a syringe on the floor. The tip of the syringe needle had red residue on it that resembled blood.
Although Engcabo may have been under the influence of some kind of drug, the State presented no evidence of the specific type of drug used by Engcabo. Engcabo argued that evidence of a specific drug is necessary for a conviction, and therefore, moved for judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion and convicted Engcabo.
We reverse.
The sole issue before us is whether under HRS § 291-7 the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was under the influence of a specific type of drug, or any drug.
HRS § 291-7 provides:
A person commits the offense of driving under the influence of drugs if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle while under the influence of any drug which impairs such person's ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner. The term "drug" as used in this section shall mean any controlled substance as defined and enumerated on schedules I through IV of chapter 329.
The State contends that it need only to prove that a defendant was under the influence of any drug. Further, a person may be convicted under HRS § 291-7 for being under the influence of drugs not enumerated on schedules I through IV of HRS chapter 329.
A court is bound by plain and unambiguous language of a statute. Unless literal application of the language would produce an absurd or unjust result clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute, the language of the statute must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. State v. Palama , 62 Haw. 159, 612 P.2d 1168 (1980).
Another "cardinal rule of statutory construction" is "that courts are bound, if rational and practicable, to give effect to all parts of a statute, and that no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all the words of the statute." Camara v. Agsalud , 67 Haw. 212, 215-16, 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984).
The language of HRS § 291-7 is clear and unambiguous, and a literal application does not produce an absurd or unjust result. Also, the State's position renders the second
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|