Hawaii Supreme Court
Criminal
State v. Domut, No. SCWC-16-0000402, January 31, 2020, (McKenna, J. with Recktenwald, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with whom Nakayama, J., joins). On April 20, 2016, Vicente Domut ("Domut") was convicted at a bench trial in district court of Driving Without a License in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 286-102(a) (Supp. 2015) and of No Motor Vehicle Insurance in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-104(a) (2005) and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-117(a)(2),(3),(5). Despite requesting a continuance for sentencing, Domut was immediately sentenced to (1) a jail term of 180 days for Driving Without a License as a repeat offender; (2) a fine of $1,500 and $37 in fees for No Motor Vehicle Insurance; and (3) suspension of any driver's license for one year. Domut appealed the district court's April 20, 2016 judgment to the ICA, which in a summary disposition order, State v. Domut, CAAP-16-0000402, at 1 (App. July 30, 2018) (SDO), affirmed the district court's judgment. Domut raised two questions on certiorari. First, he contended the ICA erred because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Domut was not in constructive possession of a license from Mexico or Canada, which would have exempted him from licensing requirements pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 286-105 (2007). The Hawaii Supreme Court addressed this issue in State v. Castillon, 144 Hawaii 406, 443 P3d 98 (2019). There, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a defendant bears the initial burden to produce evidence to support a Hawaii driver's license exemption based on possession of a valid license from Canada or Mexico. Domut did not produce any evidence of the applicability of the exemption to him. Therefore, his first question on certiorari was without merit. In his second question on certiorari, Domut contended the ICA erred in concluding that he failed to meet his burden of production to raise evidence of a "good faith lack of knowledge" defense under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-117(a)(4)(C), and that the burden had shifted to the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, citing to State v. Bolosan, 78 Hawaii 86, 890 P.2d 673 (1995). In that case, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that "if a driver borrows an uninsured vehicle, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver actually knew that the vehicle was uninsured at the time [the driver] was operating it." Bolosan, 78 Hawaii at 90-91, 890 P.2d at 677-78. As indicated by the ICA, the Hawaii Supreme Court held in State v. Lee, 90 Hawaii 130, 976 P2d 444 (1999), that the defendant bears the burden of production that they had borrowed a vehicle owned by another. Lee, 90 Hawaii at 140, 976 P.2d at 454. Although evidence of facts establishing a defense may also be supplied by the prosecution, State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawaii 195, 206, 58 P.3d 1242, 1253 (2002), Domut did not meet his burden of producing evidence that he had borrowed a vehicle owned by another. Therefore, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected his argument. But in his second question on certiorari, Domut also alleged the ICA erred by requiring him to present evidence of a...
