State v. Wilhelm

── State v. Wilhelm ── Court: Hawaii Supreme Court Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 15-MAY-2026 08:25 AM Dkt. 76 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RACHELLE WILHELM, also known as Rachele Wilhelm, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAIʻANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DTC-24-005546) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Rachelle Wilhelm (Wilhelm) appeals from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court) 1 August 28, 2024 "Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment" (Judgment). On April 29, 2024, the Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi (State) charged Wilhelm by Complaint with Driving Without 1 The Honorable Bryant G.F.Y. Zane presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER License in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102 (2020). Following a jury-waived trial, the district court found Wilhelm guilty, sentenced Wilhelm to serve six hours of community service in lieu of a $100 fine, and waived all applicable fees upon finding an inability to pay. 2 Wilhelm appealed. On appeal, Wilhelm raises two points of error, contending that "[t]he district court erred when it adjudged Wilhelm guilty": (1) "on the basis of an improperly admitted confession"; and (2) "because the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support conviction." Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we address Wilhelm's points of error on appeal as follows: (1) Wilhelm contends that the district court erred by improperly admitting Wilhelm's statement, made to Officer Joshua Zara (Officer Zara), that Wilhelm "handed [Officer Zara] her state ID and stated she does not have a license." "[W]e apply a de novo standard of appellate review to the ultimate issue of 2 The State also alleged that Wilhelm should be sentenced in accordance with HRS § 286-136(b) (2020) for having had two or more prior convictions for Driving Without License in the five-year period preceding the instant offense. The district court found that the State did not prove Wilhelm's prior convictions, and sentenced Wilhelm for Driving Without License as a petty misdemeanor. 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the voluntariness of a confession." State v. Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi 413, 422, 465 P.3d 860, 869 (2020) (cleaned up). A criminal conviction may not be based on an involuntary confession. Id. at 422-23, 465 P.3d at 869-70. Wilhelm's statement that she did not have a license was inculpatory. Pursuant to HRS § 621-26 (2016), "[t]he trial judge has a duty to determine the admissibility of an inculpatory statement," and this factual determination must be made prior to the admission of the statement. State v. Green, 51 Haw. 260, 264, 457 P.2d 505, 508 (1969) (citations omitted). Here, as the State concedes, the district court did not make the requisite factual determination prior to admitting