 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. O''Brien7/22/1985
Opinion OF THE COURT BY LUM, C.J.
Petitioner State of Hawaii seeks review of the April 16, 1985 decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals which held that a defendant charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor ("DUI") pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 291-4 is constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. Because we are convinced that the ICA's decision is a correct application of our precedent and our State constitution, we affirm, and reverse and remand this case for retrial before a jury.
I.
Defendant Daniel R. O'Brien was issued a DUI citation on May 26, 1983. He refused to submit to breath or blood tests which would have
determined the alcohol content of his blood. After the statutorily-mandated implied consent hearing was completed, O'Brien demanded a jury trial on the DUI charge. This demand was rejected by the trial court on October 7, 1983.
O'Brien was found guilty of the DUI charge. The trial court determined that the appropriate sentencing provision would be HRS § 291-4(b)(2), since O'Brien had previously been convicted of a DUI offense in 1980. He received a $500 fine and a one year driver's license suspension.
II.
The State of Hawaii attacks the ICA's ruling on the ground that the court erroneously held that DUI offenses are required to be tried to a jury. Principally, its argument is that the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor is not "by its nature serious" and that, therefore, the right to a jury trial is not triggered.
We disagree, and adopt the reasoning of the ICA's opinion below. Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution guarantees that " he trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury," and the sixth amendment provides that " n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment makes the guarantee of a jury trial binding on the states. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, reh'g denied, 392 U.S. 947 (1968).
The Constitution of the State of Hawaii provides, in part, " n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ." Art. I, § 14. We have previously indicated that our interpretation of this section would be guided by, although not dictated by, precedent of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the sixth amendment. State v. Shak, 51 Haw. 612, 615, 466 P.2d 422, 424, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 930 (1970).
Although the right to a jury trial is of great importance to our system of justice, that right is not absolute. State v. Kasprzycki, 64 Haw. 374, 375, 641 P.2d 978, 978 (1982). In State v. Shak, supra, we held that a defendant charged with a "petty" crime does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial. We also used that occasion to adopt the analysis used by the Supreme Court in determining whether an offense is petty or serious. As we stated there:
Under the Federal Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has held that two criteria are relevant in determining whether an offense is petty or serious. The first is whether the offense is by its nature serious. If so, the size of the penalty that may be imposed is only of minor relevance, and the right of trial by jury
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|