|Seeking||Search Horney Couples|
|Relation Type||Fat Women Looking Single Blonde|
CourtListener is a project of Free Law Projecta federally-recognized c 3 non-profit. We rely on donations for our financial security. Donate Now.
Omnigo is committed to helping organizations ensure safer tomorrows
In Register. Filed: December 31st, Precedential Status: Precedential.
Citations: None known. Your Notes edit none.
Chay By 0 This case has not yet been cited in our system. Authorities 46 This opinion cites: State v. Ketchum, 34 P. Mark Steven Hitchcock, F.
Endo, P. EJF, So. Arizona, U. Please support our work with a donation. McKnight, Jr. McKnight appealed his conviction for Electronic Enticement, and the State cross-appealed the suppression of certain evidence, including a statement made by McKnight after he was arrested and evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a misdated search warrant. McKnight raises three questions on oming, printed in the order addressed: .
Did the ICA gravely err by disregarding the plain and unambiguous language of a criminal chay and holding that proof that the defendant used a computer or other electronic device was not part of each element of the offense? Did the ICA gravely err in chat that Mr. McKnight waived his right to counsel after he asserted his constitutional and statutory rights and the police made no effort to find a lawyer, denied his right to contact his mother, and wanted to question him further?
August presided. Factual Background The charges against McKnight stemmed from an omingi investigation conducted by the Department of the Attorney General. omingo
The campus chat (denton, tex.), vol. 13, no. 40, ed. 1 saturday, august 17, - 8 of 10 - the portal to texas history
The agents, who intended to obtain a search warrant for the residence, concluded that such questioning was permissible because it did not involve interrogating McKnight about the case. Agent Domingo returned to the interview room minutes later with the intention of further ominog McKnight. As Agent Domingo began tape-recording their dialogue, however, McKnight again asked if he could call his mother. Now, will — after this is done, will you allow me to call my mother?
You have got to oningo me what you want to do, Robert.
Emphasis added. When McKnight agreed to continue, Agent Domingo presented him with a second constitutional rights form, on which 3 Agent Domingo admitted that a search warrant had not yet been prepared omingp their intention was to apply for one. The State filed chats in opposition to both motions; and the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on December 8, After this hearing, McKnight alerted the court to the error in the date on the search warrant and filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of his Motion to Suppress Evidence.
Endo, 83 Hawai i 87, P. A person commits the offense of Electronic Enticement of in omjngo First Degree if he intentionally or knowingly omingo a computer or any other electronic device to intentionally or knowingly communicate with another person, who represents that person to be under the age of eighteen years, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of Sexual Assault in the First Degree or Sexual Assault in the Third Degree, and intentionally or knowingly agrees to meet with another person who represents that person to be a minor under the age of eighteen years, and intentionally or knowingly travels to an agreed upon meeting place at an agreed upon meeting time.
There are five material elements of the offense of Electronic Enticement of in the First Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These five elements are: 1. That hcat or about the 13th day of Juneto and including the 6th day of July,in the County of Maui, State of Hawaii, Defendant intentionally or knowingly used a computer or other electronic device; and 2.
That the Defendant intentionally or knowingly used a computer or other electronic device to communicate with another person, who represented that person to be under the age of eighteen years; and 3. That the Defendant intentionally and knowingly agreed to meet with another person who represented that person to be under the age of eighteen years; and 5. That the Defendant intentionally or knowingly traveled to an agreed upon meeting place at an agreed upon meeting time. A person commits the felony offense of Sexual Assault in the First Degree if he omingo engages in sexual penetration with a minor who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and the person is not less than five years older than the minor and the person is not legally married to the minor.
A person commits the felony offense of Sexual Assault in the Third Degree if he knowingly engages in sexual contact with a minor who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old or causes a minor who is at chat fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old to have sexual contact with him, and the person is not less than five years older than the minor, and the person is not legally married to the minor. A jury found McKnight guilty as charged of Electronic Enticement.
McKnight appealed this Judgment.
Appeals to the ICA 1. The State omlngo not explain how imposing a computer-use requirement on the agreement to meet would render the statute absurd. McKnight also argued that the error in the issuance date of the search warrant rendered it invalid, and execution of the warrant constituted an invasion of his right to privacy. It concluded that construing the statute otherwise would lead to illogical and inconsistent by limiting application of the statute to atypical situations.
Kotis, 91 Hawai i, P. State v.
Davis, 63 Haw. Based on the analysis below, we conclude that: 1 requiring the use of a computer or other electronic device to travel to the agreed-upon meeting place at the agreed-upon chat would render the statute absurd in meaning; and 2 requiring the use of a computer or other electronic device to agree to meet with the minor would render the statute structurally incoherent as a whole.
In cchat the purpose of a statute, the court may look to the relevant legislative history to discern the underlying policy, which the legislature sought to promulgate. Wells, 78 Hawai i, P. Thus, the plain language rule of statutory construction does not preclude an examination of sources other than the language of the statute itself even when the language appears clear upon perfunctory review.
Were this not the case, a court may be unable to adequately discern the underlying policy which the legislature seeks to promulgate and, thus, would be unable to determine if a literal construction would produce an absurd or unjust result, inconsistent with the policies of the statute. Keliipuleole v. Wilson, 85 Hawai i, P. It noted, however, that one method of investigation which had proven successful for omimgo such crimes was the omingo of sting operations in which a police officer posed as a minor in chat rooms or e-mail communications with the sex offender.
The Senate Standing Committee explained, Your Committee finds that the use of the Internet to entice children into meetings has become widespread. Current laws do not specifically address using computers to communicate with minors for purposes of committing crime. This measure would close that loophole, and would allow sex offenders to be investigated and prosecuted before they commit a kidnapping or other crime.
Once the sex offender agrees to meet the oming and goes to dhat meeting place, the offender is arrested. See also S. Travel to an Agreed-Upon Meeting Place McKnight argues that the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that he used a computer or electronic device to travel to an agreed-upon meeting place at an agreed-upon meeting time. Park, 55 Haw.
See also Keliipuleole, 85 Hawai i atP. Ogata, 58 Haw. See, e. Haugen, Hawai i 71,85 P. As the State correctly points out, computers are not modes of transportation that can be used to travel to a given location. The Agreement to Meet McKnight also argues that the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that he used a computer or electronic device to agree to meet with a person who represented herself oming chat under the age of eighteen years.
We disagree, because it is conceivable to utilize a computer or other electronic device e. In construing each individual part of a statute, the court must consider the statute as a whole to ensure that all parts produce a harmonious and sensible whole. It is fundamental in statutory construction that each part or section of a statute should oingo construed in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a harmonious whole.
Statutes should be interpreted according to the intent and meaning, and not always according to the letter, and every part omingo must be viewed in connection with the whole so as to make all parts harmonize, if practicable, and give a sensible and intelligent effect to each.
Upon initial review, it appears the computer-use requirement in subsection 1 applies to a the act of communication, b the agreement to meet with intent to promote or facilitate a felony, and c the act of traveling to the agreed-upon meeting place at the agreed-upon meeting time. For the reasons noted earlier, however, we have already concluded that extending the computer-use requirement to c would be absurd. Imposing the computer-use requirement on the first two conduct elements but not the third renders the statute inconsistent in terms of its structure.
Eugene "gene" brisset obituary - haughton, la
In order to construe the statute as a harmonious whole, the computer-use requirement can only logically apply to athe act of communicating with a person who represents him- or herself to be under the age of eighteen years, and not to b or c. Acoba, Jr. Accordingly, we do not find it necessary to address this issue. Jenkins, 93 Hawai i 87,P. Kelekolio, 74 Haw.
Otamba declaration dead on arrival as maangi-nyachae reportedly differ
omingo We conclude, in view of the totality of the circumstances, that McKnight did not reinitiate communication with the agents and that his custodial statement was obtained without a voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. The Right Against Self-Incrimination Article I, section 10, of the Hawai i Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution both recognize the right against self-incrimination and require the State to show that certain procedural safeguards are taken to advise a criminal defendant of his constitutional rights before custodial statements may be used against him as direct chat or impeachment evidence.
Specifically, a defendant must be advised of his right to remain silent, the fact that anything he says may be used as evidence against him, his right to an attorney, and the fact that an attorney will be appointed for him if he cannot afford one. Miranda v.
Nelson, 69 Haw. Ominto a defendant makes an unequivocal request for counsel during custodial interrogation, all questioning must cease until counsel is present or until the defendant himself reinitiates further conversation.
Omegle: talk to strangers!
Edwards v. Voluntary, Knowing, and Intelligent Waiver of Rights Once a defendant invokes his right to counsel, the police must cease all interrogation. See Ketchum, 97 Hawai i at34 P. See State v. Ikaika, 67 Haw. This court held: Accordingly, we reaffirm the principle that interrogation consists of any express question—or, absent an express question, any words or conduct—that the officer knows or reasonably should know is likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Oregon v. Brhaw, U.