The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently upheld the conviction of Thomas G. Dullam for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII), specifically marijuana. This decision, filed on September 11, 2026, affects Dullam and others facing similar DUI charges related to marijuana use. The ruling clarifies legal standards surrounding DUI cases involving cannabis.
Dullam's conviction stems from an incident on June 11, 2022, when he was found in the driver's seat of a running vehicle at Old Airport Park, allegedly smoking marijuana with others. The case reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after Dullam appealed the District Court's decision, arguing that several errors occurred during his trial.
The parties involved in this case are the State of Hawaii, represented by the prosecution, and Thomas G. Dullam, the defendant. Dullam was convicted in the District Court of the Third Circuit, where he faced charges related to operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana. The case was appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, where Dullam raised multiple points of error regarding the trial proceedings.
In its ruling, the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, stating, "The State had 'met its burden' and found Dullam guilty of OVUII." The court addressed four main points raised by Dullam, including the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, the qualifications of police officers to testify, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction. The judges involved in this ruling were Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone, Associate Judge Keith K. Hiraoka, and Associate Judge Kimberly T. Guidry.
Regarding Dullam's first point, the court ruled that he was not entitled to Miranda warnings before being asked medical rule-out (MRO) questions, as he was not considered to be in custody at that time. The court stated, "Dullam's assertion that he was 'in custody' for Miranda purposes because probable cause existed to support the 'crime' of marijuana possession under HRS § 712-1249 lacks merit." This ruling highlights the importance of determining whether a suspect is in custody when assessing the need for Miranda warnings.
The court also addressed Dullam's challenges to the qualifications of the police officers who testified during the trial. The judges found that Dullam's objections regarding the officers' qualifications were insufficient to preserve the issues for appeal, as he did not provide specific objections during the trial. The court noted that general objections often do not adequately inform the trial court of the perceived errors.
In assessing the evidence presented at trial, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported Dullam's conviction. The judges pointed out that Dullam was found in the driver's seat of a running vehicle, exhibited signs of impairment during field sobriety tests, and admitted to smoking multiple bong hits of marijuana. The court stated, "Considering such evidence in the strongest light for the prosecution, Dullam's conviction was supported by substantial evidence."
This ruling has significant implications for future DUI cases involving marijuana in Hawaii. It reinforces the standards for determining whether a defendant is in custody for Miranda purposes and clarifies the qualifications required for police officers to testify as experts in DUI cases. The decision may also influence how evidence is presented and challenged in similar cases moving forward.
Looking ahead, Dullam has the option to appeal this decision to the Hawaii Supreme Court, although it remains unclear whether he will pursue that route. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future cases involving marijuana-related DUI charges in Hawaii, as it addresses key legal questions about the admissibility of evidence and the qualifications of law enforcement witnesses.