State v. Nguyen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-AUG-2025
08:11 AM
Dkt. 69 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES NGUYEN, also known as CHARLES AU NGUYEN, Defendant-
Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTA-24-00578)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)

In this appeal involving an Operating a Vehicle Under
the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) offense, Plaintiff-
Appellant State of Hawaiʻi (State) challenges the district
court's suppression of the defendant's breath alcohol
concentration (BAC) test on grounds that the implied consent
form was defective. We vacate and remand.
The State appeals from the July 30, 2024 "Notice of
Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment" (Judgment)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

entered by the District Court of the First Circuit (District
Court). 1
On appeal, the State contends the District
Court, by concluding that the Honolulu Police Department (HPD)
form 396K (implied consent form) was defective for (1) failing
to inform Nguyen that he had a "Constitutional right to refuse a
test" and (2) failing to inform him of "the enhanced penalties
of [sic] a [BAC] test over .15" (highly intoxicated driver
penalties), 2 erred in suppressing the results of Defendant-
Appellee Charles Nguyen's (Nguyen) BAC test.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the
State's contentions as follows.
The State charged Nguyen via a May 8, 2024 Complaint
with OVUII as a highly intoxicated driver under HRS § 291E-
61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3), and (b)(1) and/or (b)(4). Nguyen filed
a motion to suppress his BAC test, challenging the validity of
his consent.
The record of the July 30, 2024 suppression hearing
reflects that, following Nguyen's arrest for OVUII, the implied
consent form was read to him at the police station. The implied
consent form contained two numbered advisements initialed "CN"
by Nguyen, which stated in pertinent part:

1 The Honorable Myron H. Takemoto presided.

2 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-1 (2020 & 2022 Supp.)
defines a "highly intoxicated driver" as a person whose BAC test result is
".15 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of the person's
breath." Under the OVUII statute, HRS § 291E-61 (2020 & 2023 Supp.), highly
intoxicated drivers are subject to additional penalties, which include
"forty-eight consecutive hours" of imprisonment and a license revocation
period of "no less than eighteen months."

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

1. CN Any person who operates a vehicle upon a public
way, street, road, or highway or on or in the waters
of the State of Hawaii shall be deemed to have given
consent to a test or tests of his or her breath,
blood, or urine for the purpose of determining
alcohol concentration or drug content, as applicable.

2. CN You may refuse to submit to a breath or blood test,
or both for the purpose of determining alcohol
concentration and/or blood or urine test, or both
for the purpose of determining drug content.

Nguyen agreed to take a BAC test. It was undisputed that the
implied consent form did not inform Nguyen of the highly
intoxicated driver penalties. Nguyen testified that had he
known of the highly intoxicated driver penalties, he would not
have submitted to the BAC test.
Nguyen argued that the implied consent form was
defective because it did not inform him of the harsher highly
intoxicated driver penalties associated with a BAC test result
over .15. The State responded that there was "no requirement"
for the implied consent form to discuss criminal penalties, and
the form properly informed Nguyen of his right to refuse to take
the breath test without a discussion of penalties, consistent
with State v. Hosaka, 148 Hawaiʻi 252, 472 P.3d 19 (2020). 3
The District Court granted the motion to suppress the
BAC test, finding that Nguyen's consent was not "knowing and
intelligent" because the implied consent form was "misleading"
for stating that Nguyen "may refuse" a BAC test instead of "a
Constitutional right to refuse" the BAC test, pursuant to State

3 Relevant to this case, Hosaka involved a challenge to the implied
consent form as coercive in its advisement regarding the sanctions for
refusal of testing. 148 Hawaiʻi at 259-63, 472 P.3d at 26-30. The Hosaka
court upheld the form because it "complied with HRS Chapter 291E" and was not
"inaccurate," "misleading," or "coercive," where "it did not threaten [the
defendant] with arrest of imprisonment for refusing a chemical test[,]"
"require [the defendant] to choose between constitutional rights[,]" or
advise that "the punishment for refusal would be worse than the punishment
for failing" the test. Id. at 263, 472 P.3d at 30.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

v. Yong Shik Won, 137 Hawaiʻi 330, 372 P.3d 1065 (2015); 4 and the
form failed to inform Nguyen of the highly intoxicated driver
penalties. The State timely appealed.
(1) The State argues the District Court "erred by
concluding that the implied consent form was defective for
failing to inform" Nguyen of his "Constitutional right to refuse
a test," because the form contained "the legislatively mandated
warning in HRS § 291E-11(b)(2)."
We are not aware of any requirement, nor does Nguyen
cite any authority mandating a requirement, 5 that the implied
consent form must specifically use the words "Constitutional
right to refuse" a BAC test, in addition to the statutorily
required "may refuse" language in HRS § 291E-11(b)(2). The
implied consent statute requires that "[t]he person has been
informed by a law enforcement officer that the person may refuse
to submit to testing under this chapter." HRS § 291E-11(b)(2)
(2020). In Hosaka, the supreme court upheld the implied consent
form in that case as "accurate and in compliance with the
implied consent statutory scheme (HRS Chapter 291E)." 148
Hawaiʻi at 258, 472 P.3d at 25.
Here, the implied consent form sufficiently informed
Nguyen, in accordance with the applicable statute, that he "may
refuse to submit to a breath or blood test, or both for the
purpose of determining alcohol concentration." Thus, the

4 In Won, the supreme court suppressed the defendant's BAC test,
and held that the implied consent form in that case was coercive because of
"the threat of the criminal sanction communicated by the [i]mplied [c]onsent
[f]orm for refusal to submit to a BAC test." 137 Hawaiʻi at 347, 372 P.3d at
1082.

5
Nguyen's reliance on Hawaiʻi caselaw mandating advisements of
constitutional rights "to remain silent," "to testify," "to the assistance of
counsel," and "a jury trial" -- are inapposite and unpersuasive.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

District Court's conclusion that the implied consent form was
defective on this basis, was erroneous. See id. (applying de
novo review to conclusions of law).
(2) The State argues the District Court did "not offer
any authority to support" its ruling that the implied consent
form was required to contain the highly intoxicated driver
penalties; and that such a ruling conflicted with the
"legislative intent" to make such forms "simple for police to
administer" and for "OVUII suspects to understand." On appeal,
Nguyen does not point to any authority requiring this
information in the implied consent form, and argues only that
Nguyen's consent was not knowing or intelligent where he was not
informed of such penalties.
We are not aware of any authority that supports the
District Court's conclusion that the implied consent form must
contain information regarding potential penalties for an OVUII
conviction based on certain test results. The pertinent
statutes, HRS §§ 291E-11 (regarding the implied consent form)
and 291E-61 (regarding the OVUII offense and penalties) do not
require the inclusion of the highly intoxicated driver penalties
in the implied consent form. State v. Won and State v. Hosaka
dealt with the implied consent form's provision of information
regarding the sanctions for refusing testing, not potential
penalties for an OVUII offense. Thus, the District Court's
conclusion that the implied consent form was defective on this
basis, was erroneous. See Hosaka, 148 Hawaiʻi at 258, 472 P.3d
at 25.
We conclude the District Court's suppression of the
results of Nguyen's BAC test was erroneous. See State v. Iona,
144 Hawaiʻi 412, 416, 443 P.3d 104, 108 (2019) (applying de novo
to a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress).

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the July 30, 2024
Judgment entered by the District Court, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 29, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Brian R. Vincent,
Chief Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Associate Judge
Seth Patek,
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Public Defender,
Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee.

6