State v. Bekkum

Summary

The Hawai'i Supreme Court held that the Intermediate Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard when it vacated Bekkum's jury convictions for two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree because the complaints omitted the statutory definition of 'compulsion.' Because Bekkum challenged the charges for the first time on appeal, the Motta/Wells rule governed: the charges were presumed valid and could be set aside only if he showed prejudice or that the charges cannot reasonably be construed to allege a crime. The court concluded the statutory definition of compulsion did not create an additional element, so the charges tracking HRS § 707-733(1)(a) were sufficient, and that Bekkum was not prejudiced because he knew the State's theory was lack of consent. The court reversed the ICA's judgment and remanded for consideration of Bekkum's remaining points of error.