With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Kekuewa unreliable for the proposition that a defendant who is not given fair notice of the public roads element may ... be convicted of OVUII as a first offense.” Concurrence at 290, 361 P.3d at 1193. To support this assertion, the concurrence relies quite heavily on a quote from Walker stating that the "current essential elements that the State must include in an OVUII charge differ from those required in 2007 at the time of the Ruggiero and Kekuewa decisions.” Concurrence at 287, 361 P.3d at 1192 (quoting Walker, 126 Hawai'i at 490, 273 P.3d at 1176). However, the validity of this statement from Walker is plainly problematic. Generally, a crime or offense is governed by the law existing at the time it was committed. See State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 370, 616 P.2d 193, 197-98 (1980) (<HOLDING>); State v. Tachibana, 67 Haw. 573, 577, 698

A: holding that when defendants plead not guilty the government is required to prove all elements of charged offenses including intent
B: holding that the act applies prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date
C: holding that all the elements necessary to prove a crime charged under the hawaii penal code must be shown to have occurred after its effective date
D: holding that the commission on remand can set the effective date of a rate to be the effective date of the original commission activity
C.