An offense is not automatically deemed serious upon satisfaction of any one of the factors. State v. Ford, 84 Hawai'i 65, 70, 929 P.2d 78, 83 (1996). Rather, "we must apply all three factors . . . in determining whether an offense is petty or serious."
Although HRS ยง 806โ60 provides that a "serious crime" for which there is a right to trial by jury means "any crime for which the defendant may be imprisoned for six months or more[,]" this court has taken into account multiple factors when determining if an offense is petty or serious, for purposes of the right to trial by jury. See State v. Ford, 84 Hawaiโi 65, 69โ70, 929 P.2d 78, 82โ83 (1996). Three factors are analyzed to determine whether an offense is constitutionally petty or serious: "(1) treatment of the offense at common law; (2) the gravity of the offense; and (3) the authorized penalty."
ยถ61 Hawaii similarly refers to the federal standard in analyzing the right to a jury trial under its constitution. State v. Ford , 929 P.2d 78, 81โ82 (Haw. 1996). Hawaiiโs constitution provides the right to trial by jury "[i]n all criminal prosecutions."
ยถ61 Hawaii similarly refers to the federal standard in analyzing the right to a jury trial under its constitution. State v. Ford, 929 P.2d 78, 81-82 (Haw. 1996). Hawaii's constitution provides the right to trial by jury "[i]n all criminal prosecutions."
Although HRS ยง 806โ60 provides that a "serious crime" for which there is a right to trial by jury means "any crime for which the defendant may be imprisoned for six months or more[,]" this court has taken into account multiple factors when determining if an offense is petty or serious, for purposes of the right to trial by jury. See State v. Ford, 84 Hawaiโi 65, 69โ70, 929 P.2d 78, 82โ83 (1996). Three factors are analyzed to determine whether an offense is constitutionally petty or serious: "(1) treatment of the offense at common law; (2) the gravity of the offense; and (3) the authorized penalty."
And although the enacting legislature expressed some concern about "public disorders and breaches of the peace" resulting from obstructions of ingress or egress, Sen. Comm. of the Whole Rep. No. 10, in 1949 Senate Journal, Special Session, at 101, these were secondary effects having little resonance in the Nakata analysis. See State v. Ford, 84 Hawai`i 65, 71, 929 P.2d 78, 84 (1996) ("the legislature's concern [was] over the serious threat to public health and safety posed by unlawful sewage disposal โ not unlawful mooring"); Lindsey, 77 Hawai`i at 167, 883 P.2d at 88 ("the legislature was concerned primarily not with prostitution itself but with the secondary effects of prostitution" (citation omitted)). We do not, in any event, here discern on the face of it an offense of salient gravity in the galaxy of crimes encompassed by the Code.
Certainly, untreated sewage can constitute a health hazard. See, e.g., State v. Ford, 84 Haw. 65, 72, 929 P.2d 78, 85 (1996) (noting that Hawaii's legislature was clearly concerned over a threat to public health and safety posed by unlawful sewage disposal). But Honolulu's sewer pipes contain more than untreated sewage that has been flushed down a toilet.
For example, improper mooring of vessel is a criminal offense, even though no prison sentence can be imposed. State v. Simeona, 10 Haw.App. 220 , 229, 864 P.2d 1109 , 1114 (1993), overruled on other grounds, State v. Ford, 84 Hawai'i 65 , 929 P.2d 78 (1996). The controlling factor is whether the legislature intended to classify the penalties as criminal or civil.
State courts are in accord. See, e.g., Burgess v. United States, 680 A.2d 1033 (D.C. 1996); People v. Foy, 88 N.Y.2d 742, 673 N.E.2d 589, 650 N.Y.S.2d 79 (N.Y. 1996); United States v. Sostre Narvaez, 279 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. P.R. 2003); State v. Ford, 84 Haw. 65, 929 P.2d 78, 86 n.4 (Haw. 1996); Harkins v. State, 735 So. 2d 317 (Miss. 1999).
She contends that the penal standard should apply because the term "penal" "pertains to any punishment or penalty and relates to acts which are not necessarily delineated as criminal." (Citing HRS ยง 701-107 (concerning grades and classes of offenses); State v. Simeona, 10 Haw.App. 220, 231, 864 P.2d 1109, 1115 (1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Ford, 84 Hawai'i 65, 929 P.2d 78 (1996); Black's Law Dictionary 1132 (6th ed.1990).) b. Paul, maintains that the vagueness of the rules allows arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement that violates her rights to due process.