 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Helm11/22/2000
by the State or subdivisions thereof or by the United States, vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or, to make arrests for offenses or to enforce the criminal laws, whether that duty extends to all offenses or is limited to a specific class of offenses[.] 1 1987 Haw. Sess. L. Act 130, § 1 at 204.
When HRS § 710-1016, Impersonating a Public Servant, was first enacted in 1972, it included peace officers or law enforcement officers. In 1984, when the statute was amended to exclude peace officers, the term "peace officer" was defined as "any public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses, whether that duty extends to all offenses or is limited to a specific class of offenses." HRS § 710-1000(13) (1976).
The 1984 amendment to HRS § 710-1016, excluding peace officers from its provisions, was intended to create harsher penalties for those impersonating peace officers. In enacting this 1984 amendment, the legislature meant peace officers to include "police officers, the sheriff and deputy sheriffs of the State Judiciary, law enforcement officers of the Department of the Attorney General, and investigators of the Department of Social Services and Housing." Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 490-84, supra. The legislature intended to address "the particularly serious problem of recent cases involving sexual abuse, assault, and homicide of female motorists committed by persons posing as law enforcement officers." Id.
IV.
It is not disputed that Helm was impersonating a public servant. The issue in dispute is whether the office Helm pretended to hold was that of a peace or law enforcement officer (the 1984 and 1987 legislative enactments made them one and the same for purposes of HRS § 710-1016). Whether or not the office Helm pretended to hold existed is not relevant.
The impersonation occurred when Helm wrote and signed the letter. The office he pretended to hold by writing the letter is that of Manager, Plant Quarantine Branch, Department of Agriculture (his supervisor's office). The letter was directed to Helm's attorney to share with a presiding judge in order to have contempt charges dropped against Helm. Helm's impersonation of his supervisor (Isherwood) was that of a public servant attempting to keep brown tree snakes from entering Hawaii from Guam. This is not the office targeted by the legislature in its 1984 amendments. Helm was not pretending to be a public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses (peace officer), but was only pretending to be his own supervisor who had purportedly sent Helm to Guam to protect Hawaii from the brown tree snake.
The district court found Helm impersonated a public servant in matters not related to peace or police officer matters. A special finding that Isherwood was not a peace officer was not required. In a jury waived trial, a special finding of fact by the trial court on a "controlling question" is required when requested by the defendant. State v. Wells, 7 Haw. App. 510, 514, 780 P.2d 585, 588 (1989). The controlling question before the trial court was not what office Isherwood held, but who Helm pretended to be. Whether or not Isherwood's office existed was irrelevant. HRS § 710-1016(2).
V.
The district court's August 10, 1999, judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.
|