State v. Millard

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
18-JUN-2025
08:02 AM
Dkt. 68 SO
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NOS. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX and 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Robert Errtte Millard (Millard)

appeals from (1) the July 7, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment

and/or Order (1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment) in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX,1 and

(2) the August 11, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order

(1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment) in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX,2 entered by the

Honolulu Division of the District Court of the First Circuit

(District Court), in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai i

(State).3

Millard raises a single point of error on appeal,

arguing that the District Court erred in denying his motion to

1
The Honorable Thomas Haia presided.
2
The Honorable Myron Takemoto presided.
3
We consolidated the CAAP-23-449 and CAAP-23-524 appeals on
December 13, 2023. In CAAP-23-449, Millard appeals the 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX
Judgment, and in CAAP-23-524, he appeals the 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

dismiss due to a defective complaint because the State did not

separately execute the declaration.

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

Millard's point of error as follows:

On November 28, 2022, the State charged Millard via

Complaint in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX as follows:
The undersigned Deputy Prosecuting Attorney [(DPA)] of
the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i charges:

On or about November 27, 2022, in the City and County
of Honolulu, State of Hawai i, ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD did
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury
to wit, physical pain, to [Complaining Witness (CW)],
thereby committing the offense of Assault in the Third
Degree, in violation of Section 707-712(1)(a) of the Hawai i
Revised Statutes.

"Bodily injury" includes physical pain, illness, or
any impairment of physical condition.

I, [DPA], declare under penalty of law that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

The 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Complaint was dated and

electronically signed by the DPA.

On March 14, 2022, the State charged Millard via

Complaint in 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX as follows:
The undersigned Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of the
City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i charges:

COUNT 1: On or about March 11, 2022, in the City and
County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i, ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD
did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily
injury to [CW], thereby committing the offense of Assault in
the Third Degree, in violation of Section 707-712(1)(a) of
the Hawai i Revised Statutes.

COUNT 2: On or about March 11, 2022 in the City and
County of Honolulu, State of Hawai i, ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD,
with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm [CW], did strike,
shove, kick, or otherwise touch [CW] in an offensive manner
and/or subject [CW] to offensive physical contact and/or did
insult, taunt, or challenge [CW] in a manner likely to
provoke an immediate violent response and/or that would
cause [CW] to reasonably believe that ROBERT ERRTTE MILLARD
intended to cause bodily injury to [CW] or damage to the
property of [CW] thereby committing the offense of

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

Harassment, in violation of Section 711-1106(1)(a) and/or
711-1106(1)(b) of the Hawai i Revised Statutes.

I, [DPA], declare under penalty of law that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

The 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Complaint was dated and

electronically signed by the DPA.

The District Court concluded that only one signature

was required for the Complaint (in both cases) because the

Complaint and the "I declare" language were a single document.

Millard argues that the State filed a defective

Complaint in both cases because the Complaints did not meet the

requirements of Hawai i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)

Rule 2.2(g). Millard contends that this "I declare" language must

have a second separate signature. Millard's argument lacks

merit.

HRPP Rule 2.2(g) provides as follows:
Rule 2.2. FORM OF PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS.

. . . .

(g) Signing of pleadings and other documents. Every
pleading and other document shall be signed by the party or
the party’s counsel. Where 2 or more documents are filed
together, the party or party’s counsel need only provide one
signature at the close of the documents filed together, with
the exception that where affidavits or declarations of
counsel are filed together with pleadings or other
documents, the affidavits or declarations must be separately
executed. Documents filed through JEFS shall be signed as
provided by Rule 5 of the Hawai i Electronic Filing and
Service Rules.

(Emphasis added).

Accordingly, a declaration must be separately executed

when it is one of two documents filed together with a pleading.

See id.

Here, the "I declare" language is not a separate

document unto itself. Rather, as the District Court determined,

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

the "I declare" language was "simply the affirmation portion of

the complaint." Accordingly, the HRPP Rule 2.2(g) requirement

that a declaration document be separately executed does not apply

to the "I declare" language in the Complaint. 4

For these reasons, the District Court's July 7, 2023

1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX Judgment and August 11, 2023 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX

Judgment are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 18, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Eric Lee Niemeyer,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Stephen K. Tsushima,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
City & County of Honolulu, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

4
We note that the Hawai i Supreme Court has upheld the sufficiency
of complaints containing the "I declare" language without a second signature,
albeit on other grounds. E.g., State v. Mortensen-Young, 152 Hawai i 385,
387-88, 399, 526 P.3d 362, 364-65, 376 (2023) (holding complaints were
sufficient because they complied with HRPP Rule 7(d)).

4