Haw. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 3.01

TABLE OF INSTRUCTIONS6

3. INSTRUCTIONS AT THE END OF THE CASE

Introductory Comment

(6/29/00).

Jury (2/10/12).

(2/10/12).

10/29/14).

The original instructions approved and published in Volume I in December,

1991 are not dated. New or amended instructions in Volumes I and II reflect

the Supreme Court’s approval date in parentheses.

6

3. INSTRUCTIONS AT END OF CASE

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT

HRPP 30(e) provides that the court shall instruct the jury

after closing arguments are completed. The defendant has a

constitutional and statutory right to be present when the Court

instructs the jury. HRPP 43; State v. Pokini, 55 Haw. 640, 642,

526 P.2d 94 (1974) (defendant "has a procedural and

constitutional right to be present whenever the court

communicates with the jury").

HRPP 30 provides specific procedures whereby counsel and

the court settle final instructions. See State v. Mata, 71 Haw.

319, 330, 789 P.2d 1122 (1990). HRPP 30(d) mandates that once

instructions have been settled, the court "shall in no case

orally qualify, modify or explain to the jury any instruction."

Objections to the instructions must be made before the jury

retires to deliberate. HRPP 30(e); HRS § 641-16; see also State

v. Iaukea, 56 Haw. 343, 537 P.2d 724 (1975). Jury instructions,

as a whole, must correctly instruct the jury on the law. State

v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 738 P.2d 812 (1987); see also State v.

Nakamura, 65 Haw. 74, 648 P.2d 183 (1982); State v. Feliciano,

62 Haw. 637, 618 P.2d 306 (1980). Instructions need not merely

"parrot the language of the statute." State v. Nakamura, 65 Haw.

at 79; see also State v. Nuetzel, 61 Haw. 531, 551, 606 P.2d 920

(1980) ("[c]larity is the true virtue of effective

communication"); State v. Apao, 59 Haw. 625, 645, 586 P.2d 250

(1978) ("the trial court is not required to instruct the jury in

the exact words of the applicable statute"). Instructions should

be "easily understandable," and present the jury with an

instruction that aids the jury in applying the law to the facts

of the case. State v. Nakamura, 65 Haw. at 79; see also State v.

Nuetzel, 61 Haw. at 550 (instructions should be "flexible with

wide discretion vested in the trial judge to clarify the terms

of the definition"). It is not error for the court to refuse

ambiguous and misleading instructions. State v. Chang, 46 Haw.

22, 374 P.2d 5 (1962). If the jury is fully and adequately

instructed on a given proposition of law, a request for another

instruction restating the same proposition in different terms

may properly be refused. State v. Nakamura, supra; see also

State v. Bush, 58 Haw. 340, 569 P.2d 349 (1977); State v.

Faafiti, 54 Haw. 637, 513 P.2d 697 (1973); State v. Johnson, 3

Haw. App. 472, 653 P.2d 428 (1982); State v. Le Vasseur, 1

Haw.App. 19, 613 P.2d 1328 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1018

(1981). The court may refuse an instruction that is not

supported by the evidence. State v. Apao, 59 Haw. 625, 586 P.2d

250 (1978); see also State v. Horn, 58 Haw. 252, 566 P.2d 1378

(1977); State v. Lincoln, 3 Haw. App. 107, 643 P.2d 807 (1982);

State v. Le Vasseur, 1 Haw. App. 19, 29, 613 P.2d 1328 (1980).

The court may not, however, refuse an instruction simply because

there is only slight evidence on the point, or because the

evidence against the point appears overwhelming. State v. Lira,

70 Haw. 23, 759 P.2d 869 (1988); State v. Warner, 58 Haw. 492,

496-98, 573 P.2d 959 (1977). As long as there is some evidence

on the point, the credibility and weight of that evidence is for

the jury. Id.; State v. Irebaria, 55 Haw. 353, 519 P.2d 1246

(1974); see cases cited in the Introductory Comment to Section

7. Specific Defenses, infra. "Erroneous instructions are

presumptively harmful and are a grounds for reversal unless it

affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error

was not prejudicial." State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. at 527, quoting,

Turner v. Willis, 59 Haw. 319, 326, 582 P.2d 710 (1978); see

also State v. Pemberton, 71 Haw. 466, 796 P.2d 80 (1990). The

court may correct erroneous instructions by withdrawal,

explanation, or correction. State v. O'Keefe, 45 Haw. 368, 371,

367 P.2d 91 (1961). The court must clearly inform the jury,

however, that the withdrawal of an erroneous instruction is

absolute, to preclude any inference that the jury might be

influenced by the erroneous instruction previously given. Id. "A

clearly prejudicial instruction, however, cannot be cured by

other proper instructions which do not call attention to the

error." State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 223, 738 P.2d 812 (1987);

see also State v. Villeza, 72 Haw. 327, 817 P.2d 1054 (1991);

State v. Napeahi, 57 Haw. 365, 377, 556 P.2d 569 (1976). When

the court has withdrawn, explained, or corrected an instruction,

the reviewing court will presume that the jury accepted the

correction. State v. O'Keefe, supra.

I will now instruct you on the law that you must follow in

reaching your verdict.

You are the judges of the facts of this case. You will

decide what facts were proved by the evidence. However, you

must follow these instructions even if you disagree with them.

You must consider all the instructions as a whole and

consider each instruction in the light of all the others. Do

not single out any word, phrase, sentence or instruction and

ignore the others. No word, phrase, sentence or instruction is

more important just because it is repeated in these

instructions.

In the event that a statement or argument made by a lawyer

contradicts or misstates these instructions, you must disregard

that statement or argument and follow these instructions.