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

No. SCWC-21-0000679, Friday, April 26, 2024, 10 a.m.

No. SCWC-21-0000679, Friday, April 26, 2024, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHARLES TUNG MING YUEN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

[ Watch the video recording on YouTube ]

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

Kailua High School Gymnasium
451 Ulumanu Drive
Kailua, HI 96734

The oral argument was also livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at and ʻŌlelo Community Television 54.

Attorney for Petitioner CHARLES TUNG MING YUEN:

      Alen M. K. Kaneshiro of the Law Offices of Alen M. K. Kaneshiro

Attorney for Respondent STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

      Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney  

NOTE Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/30/24.

COURT:  Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

Defendant-Appellant Charles Yuen is alleged to have rear-ended another car 50 feet outside of the O’Malley Gate of the Hickam Air Force Base.  Military officers apparently came to the scene, administered a standard field sobriety test (“SFST”) on Yuen, and called the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”).  HPD officers then arrived, conducted their own SFST, and then arrested Yuen for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (“OVUII”).

None of the military officers testified at trial, and their SFST was not introduced as evidence.  HPD officers testified to observing Yuen experience signs of intoxication upon arriving at the scene.  The District Court of the First Circuit found Yuen guilty of OVUII.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. On certiorari, Yuen asserts the ICA erred in holding that: (1) Yuen’s trial counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress under article I, section 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (1994), which generally prevents military officers from participating in civilian law enforcement; and (2) substantial evidence existed to support Yuen’s conviction for OVUII.