State v. Domut

457 P.3d 822

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Vicente L. DOMUT, also known as Vicente Domut, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-16-0000402

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

JANUARY 31, 2020

I. Introduction

On April 20, 2016, Vicente Domut ("Domut") was convicted at a bench trial in the District Court of the Second Circuit Wailuku Division ("district court") of Driving Without a License in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 286-102(a) (Supp. 2015) and of No Motor Vehicle Insurance in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104(a) (2005) and HRS § 431:10C-117(a)(2),(3),(5) (Supp. 2006). 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 Intermediate Court of Appeals ("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 raises two questions on certiorari. First, he contends the ICA erred because the State of Hawai‘i ("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 HRS § 286-105 (2007). We addressed this issue in State v. Castillon, 144 Hawai‘i 406, 443 P.3d 98 (2019). We held that a defendant bears the initial burden to produce evidence to support a Hawai‘i 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 is without merit and we do not further address this issue.

In his second question on certiorari, Domut contends 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 HRS § 431:10C-117(a)(4)(C),¹ and that the burden had shifted to the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, citing to State v. Bolosan, 78 Hawai‘i 86, 890 P.2d 673 (1995). In that case, we 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 Hawai‘i at 90-91, 890 P.2d at 677-78.

Domut contends that evidence adduced by the State that he was transporting two passengers in the vehicle, that he was not on that date and never was the registered owner of the vehicle, and that the vehicle's registration was current provided evidence of the "good faith lack of knowledge defense," shifting the burden to the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

As indicated by the ICA, we held in State v. Lee, 90 Hawai‘i 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999), that the defendant bears the burden of production that they² had borrowed a vehicle owned by another. Lee, 90 Hawai‘i 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 Hawai‘i 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, we reject his argument.

But in his second question on certiorari, Domut also alleges the ICA erred by requiring him to present evidence of a "borrower/lender relationship" with the registered owner of the vehicle to assert the "good faith lack of knowledge" defense. In this regard, we agree that the ICA erred. HRS § 431:10C-117(a)(4)(C) allows the "good faith lack of knowledge" defense when an operator reasonably believes a "borrowed motor vehicle" is insured. An operator could have such a belief without "borrowing" the motor vehicle from the registered owner. This error does not, however, require vacating Domut's No Motor Vehicle Insurance conviction, as there was no evidence of "borrowing" that would have shifted the burden to the State to disprove the defense.

We notice plain error affecting substantial rights, however, that requires vacating Domut's convictions for Driving Without a License and No Motor Vehicle Insurance. Domut was entitled to a jury trial on the Driving Without a License charge. During the jury trial waiver colloquy, the district court advised Domut that he had a right to jury trial on only one of the charges, and it did not inform him that he was entitled to a jury trial on the Driving Without a License charge. For this reason alone, there was no valid waiver of his right to jury trial on this charge. The district court's advisement during the jury trial colloquy was also erroneous and confusing for other reasons. Thus, the record does not reflect a knowing and intelligent waiver of Domut's right to a jury trial. State v. Gomez-Lobato, 130 Hawai‘i 465, 469, 312 P.3d 897, 901 (2013).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment as well as the ICA's judgment on appeal are vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Background

A. Factual background and district court proceedings

On November 17, 2014, Domut was driving a motor vehicle carrying two passengers on Haleakala Highway. Domut was stopped by Maui County Police Officer Lawrence Becraft ("Officer Becraft") for speeding and not using a turn signal. When asked by Officer Becraft, Domut did not produce a driver's license, proof of motor vehicle insurance, or proof of self-insurance. Officer Becraft issued Domut two citations, including the citation 2DTC-14-004621, one for the subject Driving Without a License and No Motor Vehicle Insurance charges.³ The State charged Domut for those offenses in an amended complaint:

COUNT ONE:

That on or about the 17th day of November, 2014, in the Division of Wailuku, County of Maui, State of Hawaii, VICENTE DOMUT having been convicted of Driving Without a License ( H.R.S. Section 286-102 ), two or more times within a five-year period of the instant offense, did intentionally, knowingly or recklessly operate a motor vehicle of a category listed in Section 286-102 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes without first being appropriately examined and duly licensed as a qualified driver of said category of motor vehicles, thereby committing the offense of Driving Without a License in violation of Sections 286-102 and 286-136(b) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

COUNT TWO:

That on or about the 17th day of November, 2014, in the Division of Wailuku, County of Maui, State of Hawaii, VICENTE DOMUT having previously committed the offense of no Motor Vehicle Insurance ( H.R.S. Section 431:10C-104 ) two or more times within a five-year period of the instant offense, did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly operate or use a motor vehicle bearing license plate number LAH091, upon any public street, road, or highway of this State without said motor vehicle being insured under a motor vehicle insurance policy, thereby committing the offense of No Motor Vehicle Insurance in violation of Sections 431:10C-104(a) and 431:10C-117(a)(2), (3), (5) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

On November 5, 2015, Domut appeared before the district court.⁴ The following colloquy took place:

COUNSEL: [Deputy Public Defender] for ... with Mr. Domut in receipt of complaint ending 1298, failure to appear. The other ending 4621, Driving Without a License, no motor vehicle insurance. Waiving reading both matters. Um ... I note that he does have a jury trial right. One second .... He would waive jury trial right.

COURT: Okay, your name, sir.

DEFENDANT: Vicente Domut.

COURT: Okay, Mr. Domut. Um, on some, on one of the charges you have a right to a trial by a jury. A trial by a jury is one in which a jury is picked by you, your attorney, and the prosecutor. Twelve people from the community are picked to be the jurors. The jury ... ah ... all twelve members must find you guilty unanimously in order to convict you of a crime.

DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

COURT: If all twelve do not find you guilty, then you're not guilty of that particular crime. Um ... if you waive, that is, give up your right to a trial by a jury, and it will be a district court judge and a judge by him – or herself will have uh will preside over a trial if we have a trial. Uh ... it's my understanding from your attorney that you want to waive your right to a trial by a jury. Is that what you want to do?

DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

COURT: You understand your right to a trial by jury?

DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

COURT: And you still want to waive it.

DEFENDANT: Yes.

COURT: This is your decision?

DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

COURT: And you're entering your waiver uh of your own free will?

DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

COURT: Based on my questions, I find that the defendant has knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a trial by a jury. I'll accept the not guilty plea entered by your attorney.

The district court then entered an order indicating Domut had waived his right to a jury trial and had pled not guilty.

On April 20, 2016, the district court⁵ conducted a bench trial.

The State first presented Officer Becraft as a witness. In summary, Officer Becraft testified as follows. On November 17, 2014, he stopped Domut on the Haleakala Highway, a public roadway, for speeding and not using a turn signal. Domut was in the driver's seat and two passengers were in the vehicle. Officer Becraft asked Domut for his driver's license and vehicle registration. Domut gave him a Hawai‘i State I.D. and "nothing else was current except the registration may have been current." Domut stated "he didn't have a license on him." When Officer Becraft asked Domut for his insurance card, Domut did not produce the card, did not provide any proof that he was self-insured, and did not explain why he did...