State v. Kwai

#29817-a-PJD
2023 S.D. 42
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

****

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BOL KWAI, Defendant and Appellant.

****

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

****

THE HONORABLE CAMELA C. THEELER
Judge

****

EDWARD P. ANGEL
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorney for defendant
and appellant.

MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General

ERIN E. HANDKE
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellee.

****

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
NOVEMBER 8, 2022
OPINION FILED 08/09/23
#29817

DEVANEY, Justice

[¶1.] This appeal involves an altercation that occurred between the

defendant and the driver of another vehicle after the defendant failed to stop at a

red light and almost hit the other driver’s vehicle. The defendant was charged with

multiple offenses stemming from the events that ensued thereafter, and after a jury

trial, the defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault and felony hit and run.

The defendant appeals, and although his appellate counsel submitted what

purports to be a Korth brief relating the issues the defendant wished to raise on

appeal, counsel asserts an arguably meritorious issue in Section A, namely, whether

the felony hit and run statute applies to intentional conduct. We address only the

arguably meritorious issue, and we conclude that the felony hit and run statute

applies regardless of whether the defendant’s acts were intentional.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶2.] In the later evening on April 25, 2020, Brian Heesch was driving with

his girlfriend, Bernadette, in her van in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, when the driver

of another vehicle failed to stop at a red light and almost hit the van. After Brian

slammed on his breaks to avoid a collision, he yelled and made gestures at the other

driver. The other driver was later identified as Bol Kwai. Brian observed that

Kwai was on a cell phone and appeared to be arguing with the person on the other

line.

[¶3.] At the next red light, Brian’s and Kwai’s vehicles were stopped next to

each other, and Kwai began yelling at Brian and continued to yell at him when the

two stopped at the next intersection. Brian testified that he decided to turn off the

-1-
#29817

main road at the second intersection to avoid Kwai, but Kwai followed him.

According to Brian, Kwai then positioned his vehicle in front of Brian’s and blocked

Brian’s passage on the road. Kwai got out of his vehicle and walked toward Brian’s.

Brian testified that he decided to get out of the van because “something [was] going

to happen[.]” He and Kwai began yelling at each other, and then Kwai punched

Brian in the mouth, causing Brian’s hat to fall off of his head. Brian testified that

he told Kwai to leave and that he did not “want any problems.” Brian bent over to

pick up his hat, and when he stood up, Kwai was gone. Bernadette testified that

she did not see Kwai punch Brian, but that Brian told her, as he was getting back

into the van, that “[h]e just hit me[.]”

[¶4.] Once inside the van, Brian decided to drive in the direction the couple

had originally planned to go, but he noticed Kwai’s vehicle in front of him again and

decided instead to follow Kwai to try to get his license plate number. Brian testified

that neither he nor Bernadette could make out the license plate number because it

was blocked by a covering. While Brian was following Kwai, Kwai pulled over

alongside the road. When Brian drove past him, Kwai either threw something or

otherwise made contact with the van, causing the windshield to shatter.

[¶5.] Brian testified that he stopped the van and got out, and while he was

walking toward Kwai, he saw Kwai holding what he thought was a metal pipe in his

hand. Brian testified that he continued to walk toward Kwai because he has

martial arts experience and believed he would be able to grab Kwai and throw him

over a nearby fence. When Brian attempted to grab Kwai by the arm, he missed,

and Kwai began hitting Brian in the head with the metal pipe. Brian testified that

-2-
#29817

Kwai hit him four or five times in the head, causing him to stagger backwards

before he eventually fell to the ground.

[¶6.] Bernadette got out of the van and saw Kwai hitting Brian over the

head with something. When she got closer to them, she observed that Kwai was

using a metal bar. She then noticed that Kwai’s vehicle was rolling forward slowly,

and she ran toward it, got into the passenger seat, and tried to shut it off, but she

was unable to do so because the vehicle was in gear. The vehicle stopped moving

after it hit a fence.

[¶7.] While Bernadette was in Kwai’s vehicle, Kwai entered the driver’s

side. Bernadette then tried to get out quickly, but as she was doing so, she felt

Kwai accelerate and she “kind of fell out” of the vehicle. She heard Brian calling for

help and then saw Kwai accelerate the vehicle backwards, running over Brian.

[¶8.] A bystander called 911, and emergency personnel arrived at the scene.

Brian was taken to the hospital by ambulance. He sustained a head injury

requiring multiple staples to repair, nine broken ribs, a broken hip, and a fractured

femur. He was in the hospital for approximately one month and he underwent

eight surgeries. He has used a wheelchair since the incident and suffers from

memory and speech issues.

[¶9.] Kwai was charged by indictment on September 9, 2020, with the

following counts: aggravated assault (extreme indifference); aggravated assault

(dangerous weapon; crowbar and/or metal pipe); aggravated assault (dangerous

weapon; vehicle); aggravated assault (physical menace); hit and run (injury or

death); and hit and run (property damage). The circuit court appointed counsel at

-3-
#29817

Kwai’s request and from September 14, 2020 to April 2021, the court held multiple

hearings related to Kwai’s concerns about procedural matters and the quality of his

representation by court appointed counsel. Ultimately, during a hearing on April

14, 2021, the court appointed new counsel (who is also appellate counsel) to

represent Kwai.

[¶10.] A jury trial was held on August 18–20, 2021. Among other witnesses,

the State presented testimony from Brian, Bernadette, and testimony from multiple

law enforcement officers establishing that Kwai was the person driving the vehicle

that ran over Brian. The State also offered, and the court admitted, the video

footage taken near the incident from a homeowner’s outside security camera. This

recording was played for the jury, and it contains audio capturing the sound of a

scuffle and people yelling. The video image, however, is grainy, dark, and from a

vantage point of some distance. It nevertheless depicts a vehicle slowly rolling

forward until it stops after the front end hits a fence. It also shows a person

entering the passenger side, leaving the door open, and then exiting. Thereafter, it

shows the vehicle accelerating in reverse and backing over a person in the process,

then driving forward and speeding away from the scene.

[¶11.] Kwai did not testify or call any witnesses, but he moved at the close of

the evidence for a judgment of acquittal. While Kwai’s motion related to all counts,

he presented specific arguments regarding the aggravated assault by physical

menace count as well as the felony hit and run count. With respect to the latter, he

asserted that the crime encompasses only accidental acts, and by presenting

evidence that the driver of the vehicle involved in this incident intentionally ran

-4-
#29817

over Brian, the State failed to make a prima facie case that an accident occurred. 1

He provided the circuit court with an out-of-state case wherein the court concluded

that the term “accident” in a similar hit and run statute did not apply to an

intentional attempt to murder someone with a vehicle.

[¶12.] In response, the State did not provide an alternative argument as to

the meaning of the term “accident” and instead argued that it is entitled to “present

alternate theories of how things happened.” The State then noted the defense’s

view of the evidence with respect to the aggravated assault count, i.e., that Kwai “in

backing up his vehicle, didn’t realize [Brian] was there[;] he was just in a super

hurry to leave[.]” The State further noted that because Kwai “didn’t render aid

upon knowing that he had, in fact, struck [Brian,]” there was evidence to support a

finding of guilt on felony hit and run.

[¶13.] In ruling on Kwai’s motion, the circuit court advised that it had

reviewed the case law provided by Kwai and acknowledged that the incident at

hand was described during trial as an intentional act. However, the court did not

adopt or reject Kwai’s asserted interpretation of the statute. Instead, the court

noted that “there is evidence that can support the fact that the driver of the vehicle

was in a hurry and didn’t necessarily intend to . . . cause the accident and then left

the scene.” The court denied Kwai’s motion for judgment of acquittal in its entirety.

1. In closing argument, defense counsel made this same argument with respect
to the hit and run count to the jury, and then focused primarily on the
assertion that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kwai
was the driver of the vehicle involved in this incident and therefore he could
not be found guilty on the aggravated assault counts.

-5-
#29817

[¶14.] The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict on all counts. The circuit

court sentenced Kwai on the aggravated assault (extreme indifference) count to

fifteen years with five suspended and gave him credit for 409 days served. The

court imposed a concurrent sentence of two years with two years suspended on the

felony hit and run (injury or death) count. The court did not impose sentences on

the remaining counts. Kwai appeals, and his appellate counsel submitted what

purports to be a Korth brief. See State v. Korth, 2002 S.D. 101, 650 N.W.2d 528.

Analysis and Decision

Compliance with Korth briefing procedure

[¶15.] In State v. Arabie, we noted that the Korth briefing procedure is used

“where court appointed counsel has identified no meritorious issues for appeal[.]”

2003 S.D. 57, ¶ 9, 663 N.W.2d 250, 254. Pursuant to Korth, counsel is to submit a

brief that contains a “Section A completed by counsel to include, among other

things, a statement ‘that counsel has not identified any arguably meritorious issue

on appeal’” and a Section B identifying “any claims of error requested by the client.”

Id. (quoting Korth, 2002 S.D. 101, ¶ 16 n.6, 650 N.W.2d at 535 n.6). We also

explained that counsel is not permitted to assert arguably meritorious issues in

Section A. 2 Rather, “the only issues that should be presented and argued in a Korth

brief are those issues presented at the client’s request in Section B of the brief.” Id.

2. The Court in Arabie noted that the language in Korth suggested counsel
could assert arguably meritorious issues in Section A. However, the Court
explained that such a view is not supportable because in Korth, the Court
had adopted Oregon’s procedure and under that procedure it is “clear that
counsel should not argue any issues in Section A of the brief.” 2003 S.D. 57,
¶ 10, 663 N.W.2d at 254.

-6-
#29817

¶ 11. “[I]f there are issues in the case that counsel believes are meritorious,”

counsel is to “abandon the Korth procedure and brief and argue those issues as in

any other criminal appeal.” Id. ¶ 10.

[¶16.] Here, counsel for Kwai submitted a brief that fails to comply with the

Korth procedure as clarified in Arabie. While counsel’s brief contains both Sections

A and B, counsel asserts in Section A an issue that he believes is arguably

meritorious in addition to identifying, in Section B, Kwai’s issues counsel found

non-meritorious. Because Kwai’s appellate counsel identified an arguably

meritorious issue, counsel should have, rather than use the Korth briefing

procedure, briefed the matter as counsel would do “in any other criminal appeal.”

See id.

[¶17.] Because both the State and counsel for Kwai have fully briefed the

arguably meritorious issue, this Court may address it despite the lack of compliance

with Korth. As this Court noted in State v. Bousum, when there is a properly filed

Korth brief and we identify an arguably meritorious issue, we would ordinarily

require supplemental briefing on the issue. 2003 S.D. 58, ¶ 10, 663 N.W.2d 257,

261; see Hughbanks v. Dooley, 2016 S.D. 76, ¶ 1, 887 N.W.2d 319, 320 (noting that

on direct appeal, this Court identified two arguably meritorious issues and directed

supplemental briefing). However, if the parties’ briefs on appeal “are complete and

supported by adequate authorities to warrant our consideration of the merits of the

issues at this time[,]” there is no reason to order supplemental briefing and the

Court may “proceed to consider the merits of the substantive issues presented.”

Bousum, 2003 S.D. 58, ¶ 10, 663 N.W.2d at 261.

-7-
#29817

[¶18.] Having decided to address the arguably meritorious issue, we decline

to address Kwai’s non-meritorious issues in Section B. This approach has been

taken by the Court in past cases wherein appellate counsel asserted an issue in

Section A that counsel believes is arguably meritorious and included the

defendant’s non-meritorious issues in Section B. State v. Dillon, 2007 S.D. 77, ¶ 29,

738 N.W.2d 57, 63 (indicating it will not address the Section B issues because “it is

improper procedure to include a Part B section with client issues when counsel has

identified an arguably meritorious issue”); State v. Lewis, 2005 S.D. 111, ¶ 7 n.2,

706 N.W.2d 252, 255 n.2 (concluding that by asserting arguably meritorious issues

in Section A, the Section B issues “are not properly before the Court”). Declining to

address Kwai’s non-meritorious issues also aligns with the notion that a defendant

does not have a right to “hybrid representation” on appeal where defense counsel

asserts the arguably meritorious issue and the defendant asserts, pro se, the issues

counsel believes lack merit. 3 See State v. Paulson, 2015 S.D. 12, ¶ 7 n.1, 861

N.W.2d 504, 507 n.1 (quoting United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570, 577 (3d Cir.

3. The Court took a different approach in State v. Paulson, 2015 S.D. 12, 861
N.W.2d 504 by reviewing only the issues identified by the defendant in
Section B even though counsel raised issues he believed to have merit in
Section A. A review of Paulson, however, reveals that it should be limited to
its unique facts because in that case the defendant did not want the
meritorious issues identified by counsel to be raised and instead wanted to
raise only frivolous issues. Id. ¶ 7, 861 N.W.2d at 506–07. The Court noted
that it could require counsel to refile a brief to comport with Korth; however,
it concluded that “refiling appears redundant in this case as [the defendant]
selected the only arguments he wanted to appeal and presented them in
Section B of the brief.” Id. ¶ 9 n.2, 861 N.W.2d at 507, n.2. Here, there is no
indication in the record or briefing that Kwai did not want his appellate
counsel to assert the arguably meritorious issue on appeal. Therefore, this
case is more akin to Lewis and Dillon.

-8-
#29817

2012). See also SDCL 15-26A-70.1 (providing that when a party is represented by

counsel on appeal, the Court is not to accept any pro se briefs except “pro se . . .

briefs filed pursuant to State v. Korth”).

Whether SDCL 32-34-5 applies to deliberate acts

[¶19.] Kwai asserts that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for

judgment of acquittal on the count alleging felony hit and run in violation of SDCL

32-34-5 because, in his view, the Legislature’s use of the word “accident” in the

statute means that it implicates only unintended occurrences, and at trial, the State

argued that Kwai’s actions were deliberate and presented evidence to support this

theory. Kwai notes that the word “accident” is not defined in SDCL chapter 32-34.

However, he contends that we should “adopt the line of reasoning” in State v. Liuafi,

623 P.2d 1271, 1282 (Haw. Ct. App. 1981), that intentionally “using one’s vehicle as

a weapon does not fit within the general, popular, usual sense of the word

‘accident.’”

[¶20.] In response, the State claims that a conviction under SDCL 32-34-5 is

not limited to unintentional acts but, rather, is intended to criminalize a driver’s

conduct occurring after the incident involving the vehicle. The State directs this

Court to the language in State v. Cameron, 1999 S.D. 70, ¶ 21, 596 N.W.2d 49, 54

that the purpose of the statute, in requiring drivers to stop and comply with SDCL

32-34-3, is to protect people injured in automobile accidents. The State also directs

this Court to a number of cases that have applied a different statutory

interpretation than the one applied in the case Kwai relies on. See, e.g., State v.

Harmon, 723 N.W.2d 732 (Wisc. Ct. App. 2006); State v. Silva, 24 P.3d 477 (Wash.

-9-
#29817

Ct. App. 2001); Gutierrez v. State, 510 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998); State v.

Rodgers, 909 P.2d 445 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995); McGee v. State, 815 P.2d 196 (Okla.

Crim. App. 1991); People v. Martinson, 409 N.W.2d 754 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987); State

v. Smyth, 397 A.2d 497 (R.I. 1979); State v. Westmoreland, 807 S.E.2d 701 (S.C. Ct.

App. 2017).

[¶21.] “[A] motion for judgment of acquittal attacks the sufficiency of the

evidence, which is a question of law whether the motion is considered before or after

the jury’s verdict.” State v. Wolf, 2020 S.D. 15, ¶ 12, 941 N.W.2d 216, 220. “A

question regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction is reviewed

de novo.” State v. McReynolds, 2020 S.D. 65, ¶ 11, 951 N.W.2d 809, 814. Questions

of statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo. Cameron, 1999 S.D. 70, ¶ 7,

596 N.W.2d at 51. “The purpose of statutory construction is to discover the true

intention of the law which is to be ascertained primarily from the language

expressed in the statute.” Id. ¶ 17, 596 N.W.2d at 53 (citation omitted).

[¶22.] SDCL 32-34-5 provides that “[a]ny driver of any vehicle involved in an

accident resulting in injury or death to any person, who fails immediately to stop

such vehicle at the scene of such accident and comply with the provisions of § 32-34-

3 is guilty of a Class 6 felony[.]” (Emphasis added.) Also relevant, SDCL 32-34-3

provides that “[t]he driver of any vehicle involved in any accident resulting in injury

or death to any person or damage to property shall immediately stop and give his

name and address, and the name and address of the owner and the license number

of the vehicle he is driving to the person struck or the driver or occupants of any

vehicle collided with and shall render to any person injured in such accident

-10-
#29817

reasonable assistance, including the carrying of such person to a physician or

surgeon for medical treatment if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary or

is requested by the injured person.” (Emphasis added.)

[¶23.] The word “accident” is not defined in SDCL chapter 32-34. However,

in Cameron, this Court looked to dictionary definitions in concluding that the word

“accident” as used in SDCL 32-34-5 “necessarily includes single-vehicle accidents.”

1999 S.D. 70, ¶¶ 18, 21, 596 N.W.2d at 53–54. From one definition, the Court noted

that the word means “a ‘sudden event or change occurring without intent or volition

through carelessness, unawareness, ignorance, or a combination of causes and

producing an unfortunate result.’” Id. ¶ 18, 596 N.W.2d at 53 (quoting Webster’s

New International Dictionary 11 (1976)). From Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court

related the “popular sense” of the word as:

[A] fortuitous circumstance, event, or happening; an event
happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or
partly through human agency, an event which under the
circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom
it happens; an unusual, fortuitous, unexpected, unforeseen or
unlooked for event, happening or occurrence; an unusual or
unexpected result attending the operation or performance of a
usual or necessary act or event; chance or contingency; fortune;
mishap[.]

Id. (emphasis added) (alterations in original) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 15

(6th ed. 1990)).

[¶24.] In a more recent edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, “accident” is

defined in one sense as “[a]n unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence;

something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be

reasonably anticipated; any unwanted or harmful event occurring suddenly, as a

-11-
#29817

collision, spill, fall, or the like, irrespective of cause or blame.” Black’s Law

Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (emphasis added). In another sense, “accident” is “[a]n

unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to the victim’s mistake,

negligence, neglect, or misconduct; an unanticipated and untoward event that

causes harm.” Id. (emphasis added). Black’s Law Dictionary more specifically

defines “car accident,” “motor-vehicle accident,” and “traffic accident” as “[a]n

accident in which a motor vehicle collides with another vehicle or with a person,

animal, or object, usu[ally] causing damage or injury.” Id.

[¶25.] Although it is apparent from the dictionary definitions in Cameron and

those cited above that the word “accident” has more than one ordinary and common

meaning, it is also apparent from these sources that there are definitions

supporting an interpretation that when the incident is considered from the

perspective of the person unexpectedly injured, an accident has occurred regardless

of the state of mind of the involved driver. The pertinent question, however, is

whether the Legislature intended by its use of the word “accident” in SDCL 32-34-5

to exclude incidents wherein a driver intentionally causes injury or death. In

answering this question, we are guided by SDCL 22-1-1, a statute that requires us

to interpret penal statutes “according to the fair import of their terms, with a view

to effect their objects and promote justice.” See Cameron, 1999 S.D. 70, ¶ 20, 596

N.W.2d at 54 (emphasis added) (quoting SDCL 22-1-1). As the Court has noted,

SDCL 22-1-1 abrogated the common law rule that “that penal statutes are to be

strictly construed[.]” See State v. Bad Heart Bull, 257 N.W.2d 715, 719 (S.D. 1977).

-12-
#29817

[¶26.] Long ago, this Court identified that the “manifest purpose” of the

requirement to stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident “is to prevent drivers

from seeking to evade prosecution by escaping before their identity can be

determined.” State v. Clark, 67 S.D. 133, 290 N.W. 237, 239 (1940). Then in

Cameron, the Court noted another purpose: “to protect persons injured in

automobile accidents by having the drivers of such vehicles render reasonable

assistance to injured persons.” 1999 S.D. 70, ¶ 21, 596 N.W.2d at 54. More

recently, the Court in State v. Nekolite, observed that punishment under SDCL 32-

34-5 is not “directly for inflicting damage or injury, but rather for the failure to stop

and comply with the requirements of SDCL 32-34-3.” 2020 S.D. 8, ¶ 21, 939 N.W.2d

850, 854.

[¶27.] With these purposes in mind, an interpretation of the word “accident”

to exclude intentional conduct on the part of the driver fails to comport with the

penal nature of SDCL 32-34-5. In fact, there is nothing in the language of SDCL

32-34-5 or chapter 32-34 as a whole that suggests the Legislature intended the

nature of the triggering vehicular incident—whether occurring by chance,

negligence, criminal conduct, or intentional conduct—to be a relevant consideration

for a conviction. On the contrary, as multiple other courts have similarly concluded,

the conduct our hit and run statute seeks to punish is the failure to stop and comply

with SDCL 32-34-3. 4

4. Secondary sources have recognized the majority view that “[t]he term
‘accident,’ as used in a state’s hit-and-run statute, includes both intentional
and unintentional collisions; the purpose of the statute is to protect persons
injured as the result of, and to ensure the assessment of liability arising out
(continued . . .)
-13-
#29817

[¶28.] For example, the Rhode Island Supreme Court, after noting that the

term “accident” has varying definitions, concluded that the hit and run statute “is

unconcerned with the cause of the accident be it by act of God, by negligent conduct,

by wilful or wanton conduct, or by intentional act” because the purpose of the

“statute is to protect by its aid provision persons injured on the highway and to

assure by its disclosure provisions that financial responsibility for the accident can

be fairly assessed.” Smyth, 397 A.2d at 499. For the same reason, the court

determined that the hit and run statute’s reporting mandates should not “depend

on the mental state of the actor involved in a vehicular collision.” Id.; accord State

v. Sabetta, 672 A.2d 451, 452 (R.I. 1996) (declining to reexamine Smyth’s holding).

[¶29.] Relying on the rationale in Smyth, the Supreme Court of Virginia also

concluded that “it makes no difference whether the collision was intentional or

unintentional.” Milazzo v. Commonwealth, 668 S.E.2d 158, 160 (Va. 2008). The

court relied on the purpose of Virginia’s hit and run statute “to protect persons

injured as the result of, and to ensure the assessment of liability arising out of, an

unfortunate vehicular event.” Id. A Wisconsin appellate court reached the same

result because it would be unreasonable “to conclude that the legislature intended

to limit ‘accident’ to incidents that occurred through the ‘lack of intention’ of the

operator of the motor vehicle[.]” Harmon, 723 N.W.2d at 737. The court also noted

________________________
(. . . continued)
of, an unfortunate vehicular event.” 7A Am. Jur. 2nd Automobiles § 327 (May
2023); accord 61A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 1694 (May 2023) (noting that “[i]n
general, it does not matter whether the person accused caused the injury or
collision by a culpable or intentional act or whether it occurred through pure
accident”).

-14-
#29817

that “[l]imiting the meaning of the word ‘accident’ to unintentional conduct

significantly undermines the purposes of the statute[.]” Id.

[¶30.] Although not directly on point because the driver did not intentionally

cause the resulting injury, the Arizona court’s decision in Rodgers is instructive.

909 P.2d at 447. In that case, “the victim deliberately jumped from [the defendant’s]

car,” and the defendant argued on appeal that because the injury did not result

from an accident, the defendant’s failure to remain at the scene did not violate the

state’s hit and run statute. Id. at 447. The Arizona court noted that the word

“‘accident’ has more than one ‘common’ usage.” Id. However, because of the court’s

obligation to “adopt the meaning that is most in keeping with the legislative

purpose behind the statute, examining the evil it seeks to remedy[,]” the court read

“accident” “to include any vehicular incident resulting in injury or death, whether or

not such harm was intended.” Id. The court determined that to conclude otherwise

“would result in consequences totally contradictory to the statute’s goal of

determining culpability” because “drivers who intentionally commit criminal acts

with their vehicles would not be legally obligated to stop, identify themselves, and

render aid[.]” Id.

[¶31.] The court in Silva also determined that a narrow reading of the word

“accident” in a hit and run statute “would frustrate the Legislature’s intent to

prevent drivers from escaping liability for their acts and to provide immediate help

for those injured.” 24 P.3d at 481. It “would lead to the absurd result that a person

could intentionally injure another person with a car and drive away ‘without fear of

violating the statute.’” Id. The court in People v. Jiminez similarly explained, “[a]

-15-
#29817

construction of the statute which would excuse those drivers who intended to cause

an injury-producing occurrence from a duty imposed on all other involved drivers

would produce the absurd result that drivers with the highest level of fault for the

injury-producing occurrence could shirk their responsibilities with impunity while

those drivers who were merely negligent or without fault were burdened with the

statute’s requirements.” 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 268, 275–76 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992); see also

McGee, 815 P.2d at 198 (“It makes no sense to read the statute as imposing duties

on persons who negligently injure others or damage their property but as absolving

persons who do so intentionally from any such duties.” (citation omitted)).

[¶32.] Notably, although the case Kwai relies on, Liuafi, 623 P.2d at 1282–83,

concluded that Hawaii’s hit and run statute does not apply to “[a]n intentional

attempt to murder a person by using one’s vehicle as a weapon[,]” it appears the

Hawaii court limited its holding to the facts at issue. The court did not issue a

broad ruling regarding the meaning of “accident”; rather, it concluded simply that

“accident” “excludes the event that occurred in this case” and, in a footnote,

indicated that it was “unnecessary to [the court’s] task in this case” to define

“accident.” See id. at 1282 n.6. Nevertheless, even if the Hawaii court intended its

holding in Liuafi to apply to all vehicular incidents arising from intentional

conduct, the case reflects a minority view and, in fact, has been distinguished and

rejected by multiple courts. 5 See, e.g., People v. Varela, B293471, 2020 WL 6111649,

5. Aside from Liuafi, we have only found one case that reached the same result.
See Gill v. Commonwealth, 465 S.W.3d 35 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). And a review
of Gill reveals that it, like Luiafi, did not consider the purpose of the hit and
run statute in light of the varying definitions of the word “accident.”

-16-
#29817

at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. October 16, 2020); State v. Parker, 689 P.2d 1035, 1037–38 (Or.

Ct. App. 1984); Harmon, 723 N.W.2d at 737.

[¶33.] To conclude that SDCL 32-34-5 only applies when the driver of the

vehicle does not intend injury or death, as Kwai asserts, would mean that “a person

could by design maim another person with a car and drive off, without fear of

violating this statute.” See Gutierrez, 510 S.E.2d at 574. Such an interpretation

contravenes “the statute’s intent.” See Nekolite, 2020 S.D. 8, ¶ 24, 939 N.W.2d at

855 (concluding that requiring knowledge of the injury as an element of the offense

would allow fleeing motorists to avoid felony-grade punishment when “our statutes

merely seek compliance with minimum standards for sharing information and

rendering aid, if necessary”). As one court explained, “[s]topping is required

regardless of the intent of the driver in causing the harm[,]” and thus, “[w]hether

the collision was intended or not is not an element of the crime.” Gutierrez, 510

S.E.2d at 574.

[¶34.] Because the purpose of SDCL 32-34-5 is to punish defendants for their

failure to stop and comply with the requirements of SDCL 32-34-3, and definitional

sources, including those quoted in Cameron, contemplate an event that is unusual,

unexpected, or unforeseen by the person to whom it happens, SDCL 32-34-5 applies

regardless of whether the defendant’s acts were intentional. Kwai offers no

additional arguments in support of his claim that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction under SDCL 32-34-5; therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s

denial of Kwai’s motion for judgment of acquittal on this count.

[¶35.] Affirmed.

-17-
#29817

[¶36.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and KERN, SALTER, and MYREN, Justices,

concur.

-18-