 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Walters5/28/2004
rranted in the instant case, inasmuch as the prosecution did not (a) interfere with the orderly proceedings of the district court, (b) violate HRS § 701-109(2) and HRPP Rule 7(f), and (c) prejudice Walters, see State v. Letuli, 99 Hawai'i 360, 55 P.3d 853 (App.2002); State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai'i 33, 889 P.2d 1092 (App.1995). [FN5] Therefore,
FN5. Unlike the dissent argues, the "district court's determination that the 'multiple continuances and delays' prejudiced [Walters] and 'congested the court's calendar,' was well supported," is misplaced. In the instant case, the prosecution consolidated the CPD 4th and DUI charges on June 22, 1999, prior to commencement of the first trial. Furthermore, multiple continuances occurred after the charges were already consolidated, based on, inter alia, court congestion. Accordingly, (1) the prosecution did not violate HRS § 701-109(2) and HRPP Rule 7(f), and (2) Walters was not prejudiced. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing the charges against Walters.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court's May 18, 2000 order granting Walters's "motion to dismiss per HRS § 701-109," from which the appeal is taken, is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|