Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-30109, Thursday, August 21, 2014, 10:00 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RANGIE B. ALANGCAS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioner: 

Paul J. Cunney, Marcus B. Sierra, Dean C.M. Hoe, and Daniel J. Kawamoto

Attorney for Respondent: 

Marissa H.I. Luning, Deputy Solicitor General

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Fa?auuga To`oto`o, due to a vacancy, filed 03/19/14.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/30/14.

COURT: MER, C.J.; PAN, SSM, & RWP, JJ.; and Circuit Court Judge To`oto`o, due to a vacancy.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

On March 16, 2014, Rangie B. Alangcas (Petitioner) timely filed an application for writ of certiorari (Application) to review the January 14, 2014 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), issued pursuant to its November 29, 2013 published opinion.

Petitioner was charged with electronic enticement of a child in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 707-756. Petitioner filed two motions to dismiss, claiming that HRS § 707-756 violated the dormant commerce clause and was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The circuit court denied both motions and granted Petitioner leave to file an interlocutory appeal, which Petitioner did on October 12, 2009.

The ICA found that Petitioner did not have standing to challenge the facial vagueness of HRS § 707-756 because the conduct the Petitioner engaged in was clearly proscribed by the statute. The ICA also held the statute was not overbroad and did not violate the dormant commerce clause. The ICA affirmed the circuit court rulings.

In his Application, Petitioner contends the ICA erred in applying an “as applied” standard to his vagueness and dormant commerce clause challenges and thus erred in holding that he did not have standing to challenge the facial validity of the statute. Petitioner also maintains that HRS § 707-756 is unconstitutionally overbroad.