|
§291-2 [OLD] REPEALED. L 1971, c 150,
§3.
§291-2 Reckless driving of vehicle or
riding of animals; penalty. Whoever operates any vehicle or rides any
animal recklessly in disregard of the safety of persons or property is guilty
of reckless driving of vehicle or reckless riding of an animal, as appropriate,
and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than thirty
days, or both. [PC 1869, c 26, §1; am L 1907, c 68, §1; RL 1925, §4388; RL
1935, §6280; am L 1941, c 116, §1; RL 1945, §11701; RL 1955, §311-1; HRS
§291-1; am L 1976, c 149, §1; am L 1977, c 162, §1; ren L 1986, c 171, §1; am L
1998, c 287, §2]
Cross References
Wild cattle or other dangerous animals, see §142-97.
Case Notes
For instructions to jury, see 22 H. 786. Instruction
singling out "unavoidable accident". 32 H. 728.
Complaint held insufficient though substantially in language
of statute. 25 H. 584.
Death ensuing from the operation of a vehicle in violation of
this section may constitute manslaughter. 29 H. 7.
Person convicted of heedless and reckless driving may not
invoke double jeopardy when person is indicted for negligent homicide upon the
death of the injured. 40 H. 331.
Charge in language of statute held insufficient. 41 H. 591.
Statute requires no more than ordinary negligence as a
standard of guilt. 46 H. 245, 377 P.2d 688. Standard not affected by point
system law. 46 H. 345, 379 P.2d 592.
Substantial evidence test applies to review of evidence; this
test not altered by HRCrP. 46 H. 245, 377 P.2d 688.
Section not limited to public property but applies to private
property as well. 55 H. 505, 523 P.2d 315.
No obvious defect in an oral charge where the record
demonstrates the charge tracks the statutory language, and the defendant clearly
understood the accusation plus mounted a viable defense. 70 H. 314, 769 P.2d
1105.
Officer's additional observations, considered in concert with
the reasonable inferences arising from defendant's screeching of tires,
warranted an objectively reasonable suspicion that defendant had, at a minimum,
committed the offense of reckless driving of a vehicle, in violation of this
section; thus, officer's investigative stop was within the parameters of
permissible police conduct. 102 H. 228, 74 P.3d 980.
See 35 H. 324; 35 H. 396; 36 H. 537; 37 H. 591; 43 H. 54; 46
H. 315; 379 P.2d 594.
PART X.
SPEED RESTRICTIONS
Cross References
Neighborhood electric vehicle requirements, see §291C-134.
§291C-101 Basic rule. No person shall
drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent and having
regard to the actual and potential hazards and conditions then existing.
Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and
appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad
grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a
hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special
hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of
weather or highway conditions. [L 1971, c 150, pt of §1; am L 1977, c 8, §1]
Case Notes
For conviction, there must be evidence that the speed was
unreasonable under the actual and potential hazards and conditions then
existing. 1 H. App. 403, 619 P.2d 1102.
§291C-102 Noncompliance with speed limit
prohibited. (a) A person violates this section if the person drives:
(1) A motor vehicle at a speed greater than the
maximum speed limit other than provided in section 291C‑105; or
(2) A motor vehicle at a speed less than the minimum
speed limit,
where the maximum or minimum speed limit is established by county
ordinance or by official signs placed by the director of transportation on
highways under the director's jurisdiction.
(b) If the maximum speed limit is exceeded by
more than ten miles per hour, a surcharge of $10 shall be imposed, in addition
to any other penalties, and shall be deposited into the neurotrauma special
fund. [L 1971, c 150, pt of §1; am L 1984, c 273, §8; gen ch 1985; am L 2002, c
160, §10; am L 2004, c 102, §2; am L 2006, c 129, §3]
Case Notes
Speeding law not criminal, therefore, not assimilated under
the Assimilative Crimes Act. 900 F.2d 1346.
In prosecution under this section, prosecutor has burden of
proving that speed limit was established in one of ways specified in this
section. 57 H. 277, 554 P.2d 767.
Tuning fork used to calibrate radar gun was itself accurately
calibrated. 70 H. 580, 779 P.2d 11.
Where trial court properly took judicial notice of the speed
limit, as required by HRE rule 202(b), there was sufficient evidence to find
motorist guilty of violating subsection (a). 95 H. 22, 18 P.3d 884.
Defendant was effectively put on notice of allegedly
exceeding speed limit established by county ordinance. 9 H. App. 73, 823 P.2d
154.
| 
