***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-11-0000765
28-JAN-2014
08:36 AM
SCWC-11-0000765
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I,Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MATTHEW LOCKEY, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-11-0000765; FC-CR. NO. 11-1-1241)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., with
Acoba, J., dissenting separately, with whom Pollack, J., joins)
Petitioner/plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai#i seeks
review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’s April 8, 2013
Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its February 26, 2013
Summary Disposition Order. The ICA’s judgment vacated the Family
Court of the First Circuit’s September 28, 2011 Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence,1 which convicted Matthew Lockey of
1
The Honorable Wilson M.N. Loo presided.
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Harassment in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes
§ 711-1106(1)(a).2 On certiorari, the State contends that the
ICA erred in holding that (1) the complaint did not sufficiently
apprise Lockey of what he must be prepared to meet because the
language was worded in the disjunctive; and (2) Lockey’s untimely
objection was not waived.
We recently addressed this precise issue in State v.
Codiamat, ––– Hawai#i ––––, ––– P.3d –––– (2013) (holding that a
charge worded disjunctively in the language of the statute
provides sufficient notice so long as the acts charged are
contained in a single subsection of a statute and are reasonably
related).
Lockey was charged under the same statute as the
defendant in Codiamat, and the language of the charge was
virtually identical to the language upheld as valid in Codiamat.
See id. at *1. Applying the holding of Codiamat to the present
case, the State’s HRS § 711-1106(1)(a) charge provided Lockey
with sufficient notice of what he must be prepared to meet.
Accordingly, the ICA erred in vacating Lockey’s judgment of
2
HRS § 711-1106 (Supp. 2009) provides in relevant part:
(1) A person commits the offense of harassment if,
with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other
person, that person:
(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches
another person in an offensive manner or
subjects the other person to offensive physical
contact[.]
2
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
conviction and sentence on the ground that the charge was pled in
the disjunctive.
Because we are vacating the ICA’s judgment on other
grounds, we need not reach the issue of whether Lockey’s untimely
objection was waived.
Accordingly, we vacate the ICA’s April 8, 2013 Judgment
on Appeal and affirm the family court’s September 28, 2011
Judgment of Conviction and Sentence.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 28, 2014.
Brandon H. Ito /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Harrison Kiehm
for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
3
State v. Lockey
Combined Opinion