*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 25671
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ADAM M. RUGGIERO, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. TR18: 1/29/03)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, it appears the state concedes that the district court erred when it convicted appellant of the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of Section 291E-61 of the H.R.S., because the state failed to prove an essential element of the offense at trial (that the parking lot is one as defined in H.R.S. § 291E-1). We conclude that the state's confession of error is supported by the record and is well-founded in law. See State v. Wasson, 76 Hawai`i 415, 418, 879 P.2d 520, 523 (1994); see also Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai`i 226, 240, 900 P.2d 1293, 1307 (1995); State v. Lewis, 94 Hawai`i 292, 297, 12 P.3d 1227, 1233 (2000). We also conclude that failure to prove an essential element of an offense at trial results in reversal of the conviction because there is insufficient evidence to prove the offense. See, e.g., State v. Figel, 80 Hawai`i 47, 904 P.2d 932 (1995). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellant's conviction of and sentence for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant is reversed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, March 19, 2004.
On the briefs:
Simone C. Polak, deputyPhyllis J.
Hironaka, deputy
public defender for
defendant-appellant