Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-15-0000402

No. SCWC-15-0000402, Thursday, March 2, 2017, 8:45 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RACHEL VIAMOANA UI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner:

Steven T. Barta

Attorneys for Respondent:

Dale Yamada Ross and David Blancett-Maddock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/01/16.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Rachel Viamoana Ui applied for certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) June 30, 2016 judgment, which affirmed the circuit court’s judgment against Ui.

This case arises out of a car accident, after which Ui was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) and driving without a license. Following a bench trial, Ui was convicted of both charges.

Ui appealed her conviction to the ICA, where she argued that the state had failed to allege the requisite mens rea for the charge of driving without a license. Ui also argued that the trial court should not have admitted her blood test results at trial because of this court’s decision in State v. Young Shik Won. In Won, this court vacated the petitioner’s OVUII conviction on the basis that the “Implied Consent Form” the State used to obtain his consent for blood alcohol tests was invalid as a waiver of his right not to be searched under article I, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution. The ICA vacated Ui’s driving without a license conviction and affirmed Ui’s OVUII conviction.

Ui’s application for writ of certiorari presents the following question:

Whether this court’s decision in State v. Young Shik Won requires the application of the rule in that case to a case on appeal at the time of the decision in which the issue had not been raised in the district court?