State v. Thompson

464 P.3d 906

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Corey THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellee

NO. CAAP-17-0000361

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

APRIL 24, 2020

On the briefs:

Charles E. Murray, III., Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai‘i, for Plaintiff-Appellant

William H. Jameson, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellee

LEONARD, PRESIDING JUDGE, AND CHAN AND WADSWORTH, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WADSWORTH, J.

Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai‘i (State ) filed a criminal complaint charging Defendant-Appellee Corey Thompson (Thompson ) with Abuse of Family or Household Member, in violation of HRS § 709-906(1)¹ (Complaint ). Thompson was summoned to appear before the Family Court of the Third Circuit (Family Court ) to answer the charge. Following Thompson's appearance and a subsequent motion, the Family Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice on the grounds that: (1) the Complaint was not signed by the complainant under oath or made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 805-1 ;² (2) no affidavit in support of the Complaint was provided to Thompson at the time of his arraignment, in violation of Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP ) Rule 5(b)(1) ;³ and (3) a penal summons was issued to Thompson based upon a defective complaint and without a probable cause affidavit, in violation of HRPP Rule 9(a).⁴

The State appeals from the Family Court's "Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Penal Summons Issued Absent Probable Cause Affidavit, Complaint Lacking Supporting Affidavit, and Improper Arraignment" (FOFs/COLs ), entered on April 17, 2017.⁵ The State contends that the Family Court erred in dismissing the Complaint on the stated grounds. The State argues that: (1) the Complaint complied with HRS § 805-1 and HRPP Rule 7(d)⁶ because it was signed by the prosecutor; (2) an affidavit in support of the Complaint was not required under HRPP Rule 5(b)(1) ; and (3) a sworn complaint or affidavit showing probable cause that Thompson had committed an offense was not required for the issuance of a penal summons under HRPP Rule 9(a).

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve the State's contentions as follows and vacate and remand.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On November 23, 2016, the State filed the Complaint, which was signed by the deputy prosecuting attorney. On the same date, the clerk of the Family Court issued a Penal Summons, commanding Thompson to appear at the Kona District Court on January 11, 2017, to answer the charge.

On January 11, 2017, Thompson appeared in the district family court, acknowledged receipt of the Complaint, and waived an oral reading of the charge. Thompson entered a not-guilty plea and demanded a jury trial. On January 12, 2017, the matter was transferred to the circuit court for further proceedings.

On March 2, 2017, Thompson filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Penal Summons Issued Absent Probable Cause Affidavit, Complaint Lacking Supporting Affidavit, and Improper Arraignment" (Motion to Dismiss ). The State filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on March 7, 2017. A hearing on the motion was held on April 3, 2017.

On April 17, 2017, the Family Court issued the FOFs/COLs granting the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds described above.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Compliance with HRS § 805-1 and HRPP Rule 7(d)

The State contends that the Family Court erred in concluding that the Complaint was fatally defective under HRS § 805-1 because it was not signed by the complainant under oath or made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court. The State argues that the Complaint complied with HRS § 805-1 and HRPP Rule 7(d) because it was signed by the prosecutor.

HRS § 805-1 provides, in relevant part:

When a complaint is made to any prosecuting officer of the commission of any offense, the prosecuting officer shall examine the complainant, shall reduce the substance of the complaint to writing, and shall cause the complaint to be subscribed by the complainant under oath, which the prosecuting officer is hereby authorized to administer, or the complaint shall be madeby

declaration in accordance with the rules of court.... Upon presentation of the written complaint to the judge in whose circuit the offense allegedly has been committed, the judge shall issue a warrant ... to arrest the accused and to bring the accused before the judge to be dealt with according to law[.]

(Emphasis added.)

Thompson argues, and the Family Court ruled, that under HRS § 805-1, the Complaint had to be signed by the complainant under oath or made by declaration according to applicable court rules. It is undisputed that the Complaint was not signed by the complainant under oath. The parties dispute, however, whether the Complaint was "made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court." HRS § 805-1. We will address that dispute first, and then turn to the underlying issue of whether the absence of the complainant's signature under oath or a declaration made under applicable court rules rendered the Complaint fatally defective for the purpose of initiating and maintaining the prosecution against Thompson.

Hawai‘i Family Court Rules Rule 81(c) states that "[c]ases for adults charged with the commission of a crime coming within the jurisdiction of the family courts shall be governed by the [HRPP]." Accordingly, here, the HRPP govern the initiation of the charge against Thompson and are the applicable "rules of court" for the purpose of making a complaint "by declaration" under HRS § 805-1. It appears, however, there is no provision of the HRPP that specifically addresses making a complaint "by declaration."

The State urges us to apply HRPP Rule 7(d), which provides, in relevant part:

The charge shall be a plain, concise and definite statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.... A complaint shall be signed by the prosecutor. The charge need not contain a formal conclusion or any other matter not necessary to such statement.

(Emphasis added.) While the rule makes no specific reference to a "declaration" under HRS § 805-1, the State argues that the phrase "declaration in accordance with the rules of court" is ambiguous, and HRPP Rule 7 "is specific and on point with regards to what is required to be in a complaint." The State further argues that, because the Complaint here was signed by the prosecutor in accordance with HRPP Rule 7(d), it sufficed as a "complaint ... made by declaration" under HRS § 805-1.

Thompson, on the other hand, contends that HRS § 805-1 is "designed to prevent the institution of criminal prosecutions based on false or frivolous charges."⁷ To achieve this objective, Thompson contends, Section 805-1 requires that: (1) "the charges be reduced to writing," and (2) "the civilian or police complainant verify the allegations of the written charge by oath or declaration." Thompson argues that various court rules, including HRPP Rule 47(d) and Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 52, define and set out the requirements for a "declaration in lieu of affidavit," and the Complaint did not comply with those requirements. The State points out that Rule 47 concerns motions, and argues that "[t]he declaration of HRPP Rule 47 only pertains to motions filed after a case has been initiated," i.e., it does not govern making a complaint by declaration under HRS § 805-1.

We recognize that the phrase "or the complaint shall be made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court" is not a model of clarity in this context. HRS § 805-1 does not identify the rule of court that must be followed in making a complaint "by declaration," and the HRPP do not include a rule that specifically addresses making a complaint "by declaration." Given this ambiguity, we look to the legislative history of this provision to determine legislative intent. See State v. Ruggiero, 114 Hawai‘i 227, 231-32, 160 P.3d 703, 707-08 (2007).

The legislature amended HRS § 805-1 in 2007, adding the phrase at issue and further revising the text as follows, with deletions indicated in brackets and additions denoted with underlines:

" § 805–1 Complaint; form of warrant. When a complaint is made to any prosecuting officer of the commission of any offense, the prosecuting officer shall examine the complainant, shall reduce the substance of the complaint to writing, and shall cause the [same] complaint to be subscribed by the complainant under oath, which the prosecuting officer is hereby authorized to administer [.], or the complaint shall be made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court. If the original complaint results from the issuance of a traffic summons or a citation in lieu of an arrest pursuant to section 803-6, by a police officer, the oath may be administered by any police officer whose name has been submitted to the prosecuting officer and who has been designated by the chief of police to administer the oath [.], or the complaint may be submitted by declaration in accordance with the rules of court. Upon presentation of the written complaint to the judge [within] in whose circuit the offense [is alleged to have] allegedly has been committed, the judge shall issue a warrant, reciting the complaint and requiring the sheriff, or other officer to whom it is directed [ (except as provided in section 805-3), forthwith], except as provided in section 805-3, to arrest the accused and to bring the accused before the judge to be dealt with according to law; and in the same warrant the judge may require the officer to summon such witnesses as are named [therein] in the warrant to appear and give evidence at the trial. The warrant may be in the form established by the usage and practice of the issuing court."

2007 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 13, § 2 at 27-28.

The Senate Committee on...