State v. Carroll
627 P.2d 776, 63 Haw. 345, 1981 Haw. LEXIS 113 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of compulsory joinder under HRS § 701-109(2), multiple offenses arise from the same criminal episode only if the conduct is so closely related in time, place, and circumstances that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without referring to details of the other.
Facts:
- On October 19, 1978, at 2:40 a.m., Alfred Kapala Carroll was arrested for starting a fire at Jefferson School.
- During a search for weapons at the scene, Police Officer Mossman found a cannister on Carroll's person.
- Believing the cannister contained nasal spray, Officer Mossman returned it to Carroll.
- Carroll was then transported to the police station for booking on the charge of Attempted Criminal Property Damage.
- At the police station, during a custodial search by a different officer, Police Officer Hee, the same cannister was recovered.
- Officer Hee identified the substance in the cannister as Mace, leading to an additional charge for Possession of an Obnoxious Substance at 3:20 a.m.
Procedural Posture:
- Alfred Kapala Carroll was tried in district court for the misdemeanor charge of Possession of an Obnoxious Substance.
- On December 26, 1978, the district court acquitted Carroll of the possession charge.
- The State then brought Carroll to trial in circuit court on the felony charge of Attempted Criminal Property Damage in the Second Degree.
- Carroll filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the second prosecution was barred by statute because both offenses arose from the same criminal episode and should have been joined.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted Carroll's motion and dismissed the indictment.
- The State, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the circuit court's order of dismissal to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the offenses of Attempted Criminal Property Damage and Possession of an Obnoxious Substance arise from the same criminal episode for compulsory joinder purposes when the defendant was arrested for the former at a school, and the latter offense was only discovered and identified during a subsequent search at a police station?
Opinions:
Per Curiam - Per Curiam
The offenses did not arise from the same criminal episode because they were not so closely related in time, place, and circumstances that an account of one requires details of the other. The court rejected the State's proposed test focusing on a 'single criminal objective' and instead adopted a test based on the evidentiary relationship between the offenses. The court reasoned that the possessory offense was distinct because its illegal nature was not recognized at the scene of the fire; it continued until the Mace was discovered and identified at the police station by a different officer. This separation in the time, place, and circumstances of discovery meant the two offenses were not part of a single episode. Therefore, the State was not barred from prosecuting the defendant separately for each offense, and the circuit court's dismissal of the indictment was reversed.
Analysis:
This case establishes the controlling test in Hawaii for determining what constitutes a 'single criminal episode' under the state's compulsory joinder statute. By rejecting a subjective 'common purpose' test in favor of an objective test based on the intertwined nature of the evidence, the court created a more predictable standard. This decision clarifies that offenses discovered at different times and locations, even if temporally close, may not be considered a single episode, giving prosecutors more leeway in bringing separate charges. It also places a boundary on defendants' ability to use double jeopardy principles to bar subsequent prosecutions for related but distinct conduct.
