This decision is published in table format in the Pacific and Hawai'i reporter.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT. CASE NO. 2DTC-11-014020.
On the briefs: Evan S. Tokunaga, Deputy Public Defender for Defendant-Appellant.
Artemio C. Baxa, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui for Plaintiff-Appellee.
By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, and Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (State) charged Defendant-Appellant Stacy Edward Hardoby (Hardoby) by complaint with Operating a Vehicle After License and Privilege Have Been Suspended or Revoked for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVLPSR-OVUII), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-62 (Supp. 2014). The original complaint did not allege a mens rea for the OVLPSR-OVUII offense. Prior to trial, over Hardoby's objection, the District Court of the Second Circuit (District Court) granted the State's motion to amend the original complaint to allege the required mens rea of " intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" for the OVLPSR-OVUII offense. The State then filed an amended complaint which alleged the required mens rea.
After a bench trial, Hardoby was found guilty of OVLPSR-OVUII. The District Court sentenced Hardoby to thirty days in jail, imposed a $500 fine and other fees and assessments, and revoked his driver's license for one year from the date of his release from confinement. The District Court entered its Judgment on April 27, 2012, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Hardoby contends: (1) the original complaint was defective for failing to allege the requisite mens rea and the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the State's motion to amend the original complaint to cure this defect; (2) the District Court violated his right of confrontation in admitting the portion of Exhibit 2 consisting of a letter signed by Beverly J. Bose, a custodian of government driving and licensing records, and it also erred in admitting the remainder of Exhibit 2 consisting of a certified copy of a printout of Hardoby's driving records; and (3) there was insufficient evidence that Hardoby had notice that his license had previously been revoked for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) to support his conviction. As explained below, we affirm Hardoby's conviction.
At trial, Maui Police Department Officer Nephi Laga (Officer Laga) testified that on December 11, 2011, he stopped a vehicle Hardoby was driving because the license plate was unreadable. Officer Laga asked Hardoby for his driver's license. Hardoby was unable to provide a driver's license but provided Officer Laga with his name and date of birth, which the officer recited in court. Officer Laga contacted central dispatch with this information and learned that Hardoby's license had been revoked. Officer Laga then cited Hardoby for driving while his license was revoked.
At trial, the District Court admitted Exhibits 1 and 2 offered by the State. Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the Judgment filed by the District Court on July 18, 2011, in State v. Stacy Hardoby, Case No. 2DTA-11-00674, which shows that the defendant was present in court, was convicted of OVUII for violating HRS § 291E-61(a), and was sentenced to driver's license revocation for one year effective immediately. Exhibit 2 consists of: (1) a letter signed by Beverly J. Bose (Bose Letter), Custodian of Public Records of the Department of Finance, Motor Vehicles and Licensing Division, County of Maui, in which Bose certifies that based on research " prepared with information taken from a subpoena or memorandum issued to our department from the MAUI COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE," the defendant's driver's license records show an active revocation from August 18, 2011, to August 17, 2012, and a suspension from July 18, 2011, to July 17, 2012; and (2) a seven-page printout of Hardoby's driving records, with each page of the printout containing a verification by Bose that the record is a true and correct copy of official records, including data compilations, of the Motor Vehicles and Licensing. Division of the Department of Finance.
The District Court admitted Exhibit 1 without objection from Hardoby. The District Court admitted Exhibit 2 over Hardoby's objection on confrontation clause and hearsay grounds. At the conclusion of trial, ...