Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure Citations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves bill clarifying citation errors won’t automatically dismiss charges if defendant not prejudiced
Summary
HB 998 clarifies that omission or error in a citation does not constitute grounds for dismissal or reversal of a conviction if the omission or error did not prejudice the defendant; prosecutors and law-enforcement representatives discussed operational consequences.
The Senate Committee on Judiciary advanced HB 998 to clarify that omission of certain information or other citation errors do not automatically require dismissal of a charge or reversal of a conviction if the omission or error did not prejudice the defendant.
Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom testified in strong support, explaining that certain citation fields (for example, Social Security number) are impractical to obtain in many situations and that the bill ensures those omissions do not automatically lead to dismissal provided the error did not prejudice the defendant. Tom said the bill would "ensure that when that information is not able to be obtained, that the remedy is not dismissal of the charge or reversal of a conviction, as long again, as the bill states does not prejudice the defendant." The Department of Law Enforcement and the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers submitted support; the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office provided examples of negative operational effects if the bill did not pass.
Daniel Hugo of the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office warned that without the bill, officers might be required to arrest or seek warrants when they could otherwise issue a citation if an individual lacks a Social Security number or current address; he said the likely outcome would be more warrantless arrests in routine cases. Committee members asked whether the statutory language provides adequate constitutional protections; Tom told the committee that similar language exists in the Hawaii Revised Statutes and that the department was not aware of constitutional issues in the proposed approach.
The committee debated what qualifies as a "minor" error and clarified the bill’s focus on omissions such as current address and Social Security number "if available," and affirmed that omissions cannot prejudice the defendant. With those clarifications the committee recommended passage as drafted and adopted the measure.
