Oral Arguments before the Hawai`i Supreme Court
No. 29847- Thursday, May 6, 2010 at 9 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SEAN K. HITCHCOCK, Defendant-Appellant. (Park Rules/Regulation)
Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant(s)
Honorable John M. Tonaki, Public Defender, and Karen T. Nakasone, Deputy Public Defender
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee(s)
Honorable Peter B. Carlisle, Prosecuting Attorney, and James M. Anderson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Transfer to the Supreme Court, filed 2/24/10.
COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN, SRA, JED & MER, JJ.
Defendant-appellant Sean K. Hitchcock appeals from the District Court of the First Circuit’s April 27, 2009 judgment convicting him of and sentencing him for illegal camping, in violation of Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 10-1.2(a)(13) (2009). Upon application by Hitchcock, the case was transferred to this court, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-58(b)(1) (Supp. 2009), on February 24, 2010. On appeal, Hitchcock argues that the trial court erred and that his conviction should be reversed because: (1) his oral charge was defective in that it failed to state an offense; (2) there was no “substantial evidence of the requisite attendant circumstance element” of the ordinance that Hitchcock camped “at a park not designated as a campground”; and, (3) assuming there was sufficient evidence to convict him, the trial court erred when it failed to apply the “choice of evils” defense to his case. Hitchcock further argues that, in any event, ROH § 10-1.2(a)(13) is unconstitutional as applied to him because it is vague, over broad, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.