Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
No. 30439 Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 10:00 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN GUNNER SCHULL, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant E. Gunner Schull
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee Keith M. Kaneshiro, Prosecuting Attorney and Anne K. Clarkin, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City & County of Honolulu
COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliʻiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.
Defendant-Appellant Edwin Gunner Schull, Jr., (Schull) was charged with being an owner of a dog that he permitted to become a stray, in violation of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) Section 7-4.2 (1990 & Supp. No. 12, 2-08).
After a bench trial, the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court) found that Schull had committed the charged offense. On appeal, Schull argues that: (1) the oral charge, which did not define the terms “owner” and “stray,” was deficient; (2) evidence of prior acts was improperly admitted for the purpose of proving Schull’s identity and that he was the owner or keeper of the dogs; (3) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he permitted the dogs to become strays; (4) ROH Section 7-4.2 is not a strict liability offense and requires proof of mens rea; and (5) the interpretation of ROH Section 7-4.2 as a strict liability offense renders the ordinance unconstitutionally broad and vague.