§291-12 Inattention to driving.
Whoever operates any vehicle negligently as to cause a collision with, or
injury or damage to, as the case may be, any person, vehicle or other property
shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both, and may be subject to a surcharge of up to $100, which shall be deposited
into the trauma system special fund. [L 1971, c 150, §2; am L 1977, c 180, §1;
am L 1998, c 287, §4; am L 2008, c 231, §6; am L 2016, c 231, §58]
Case Notes
Section not limited to public property but applies to private
property as well. 55 H. 505, 523 P.2d 315 (1974).
In order to convict under this section, the conduct and
result elements all must be proven, along with the requisite state of mind; the
"alternative means" theory of this section expressed by the
intermediate court of appeals in Momoki rejected. 118 H. 1, 185 P.3d 186
(2008).
In order to convict under this section, the prosecution has
the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant (1) operated a
vehicle "without due care or in a manner" (conduct) (2) "as to
cause a collision with, or injury or damage to, as the case may be, any person,
vehicle or other property" (result of conduct), and that defendant did so
(3) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. 118 H. 1, 185 P.3d 186 (2008).
The term "collision", in this section, should carry
its common meaning, and not the more expansive technical definitions used in
some contexts; under such a construction, "collision" generally
refers to "an automobile coming in contact with some other vehicle or some
perpendicular object obstructing the course of its progress"; where
defendant's front truck wheels were stuck hanging one foot over the parking lot
edge, defendant's vehicle was not involved in a collision as a matter of law
and defendant thus could not be convicted under this section. 118 H. 1, 185
P.3d 186 (2008).
To the extent that the "without due care"
designation fails to map the state of mind requirement described as
"negligently" in the Hawaii penal code, no state of mind is clearly
specified by this section; thus, the default states of mind of
"intentionally", "knowingly", or "recklessly",
would be required as to each element of this section. 118 H. 1, 185 P.3d 186
(2008).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case:
State v. Bayly, 185 P.3d 186 (Haw. 2008).
State v. Bayly, 185 P.3d 186 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 41× “BACKGROUND On December 6, 2005, Bayly was charged by complaint with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OUI) in violation of HRS § 291E-61, 2 and inattention to driving, in violation of HRS § 291-12. 3 A bench trial was held on March 31, 2006.”
State v. Jing Hua Xiao, 231 P.3d 968 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 14× “Following a bench trial, the district court acquitted Bayly of the OUI charge but found him guilty of inattention to driving in violation of HRS § 291-12. [3] Id. at 5, 185 P.3d at 190 .”
State v. Davia, 953 P.2d 1347 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 6× “On March 8, 1996, Davia was charged with one count of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of HRS § 291-4, and one count of inattention to driving, in violation of HRS § 291-12 (1993). 4 The charges' arose out of an incident that occurred in the…”
State v. Entrekin, 47 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 4× “On March 13, 2001, the prosecution charged Entrekin by amended complaint with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of HRS § 291-4, see supra note 4, inattention to driving, in violation of HRS § 291-12 (Supp.2001), 5 and promoting a detrimental drug…”
State v. Momoki, 46 P.3d 1 (Haw. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Garibaldi, judge presiding, that convicted him of driving under the influence of drugs, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-7 (1993), 1 and inattention to driving, in viola *189 tion of HRS § 291-12 (Supp.2001). 2 On appeal, Momoki raises two issues germane to…”
State v. Mitchell, 15 P.3d 314 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Defendant-Appellant Preston Mitchell (Mitchell) appeals the December 30, 1998 judgment of the district court of the second circuit, in which the court, upon a bench trial of even date, convicted him of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI), in violation of…”
State v. Lee, 523 P.2d 315 (Haw. 1974).
· cites it 12× “On May 11, 1973, defendant-appellee Lee was arraigned in the District Court of the Third Circuit, South Hilo Division, for alleged violation of HRS § 291-12. 1 The information in this case charged defendant-appellee Lee as follows: INFORMATION On or about the 7th day of April,…”
State v. Anger, 98 P.3d 630 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 4× “On December 7, 2000, the prosecution charged Anger by complaint with the following offenses: (1) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (Count I), in violation of HRS § 291-4, see supra note 2; (2) inattention to driving without due care (Count II), in violation of…”
State v. Nakamitsu., 398 P.3d 746 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “In Count 2, Nakamitsu was charged with Inattention to Driving under HRS § 291-12. He entered a plea of no contest, and his motion for deferred acceptance of his plea was granted.”
State v. Reyes, 560 P.2d 114 (Haw. 1977).
· cites it 7× “This appeal is from a conviction, in a bench trial, of the offense of inattention to driving as defined in HRS § 291-12. 1 The undisputed evidence showed that Appellant, intending to make a left turn from a two-lane highway into a gravel road, moved the vehicle he was driving…”
State v. Sardinha., 526 P.3d 281 (Haw. 2023).
· cites it 4× “” After discovering the fleeing vehicle later that night, HPD cited Sardinha for (1) driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license, in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102;2 (2) driving a motor vehicle while his license was revoked, in violation of…”
State v. Ngo., 292 P.3d 1260 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 4× “VI. In connection with the first question, Petitioner also contends that the charge was deficient because it omitted any allegation of the requirements of HRS § 291C-14, that are “essential elements” of HRS § 291-12.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.