reasonable doubt standard in Hawaii

2025"Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of 'whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'" Austin, 143 Hawai#i at 28–29, 422 P.3d at 28–29 (citing State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai#i 325, 329 n.6, 966 P.2d 637 , 641 n.6 (1998) (quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai#i at 114, 924 P.2d at 1220 ).

2023A "[v]iolation of the constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses is subject to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard." Id. at 190, 426 P.3d at 414 (quoting State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai#i 109, 113-14, 924 P.2d 1215, 1219-20 (1996)).

2022We review for plain error because of Prescott's contention that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated. 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER "Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct[3] are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai#i 405, 412, 984 P.2d 1231, 1238 (1999) (cleaned up).

2020The harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard "requires an examination of the record and a determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai#i 405, 412, 984 P.2d 1231, 1238 (1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2009In order to "determine whether reversal is required under [Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure] Rule 52(a) because of improper remarks by a prosecutor which could affect a defendant's right to a fair trial, we apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review," State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai`i 517, 528, 923 P.2d 934, 945 (App. 1996), cert. denied, 84 Hawai`i 127, 930 P.2d 1015 (1996) (quoting State v. Saka, 79 Hawai`i 293, 301, 901 P.2d 1272, 1280 (App. 1995), cert. denied, 79 Hawai`i 341, 902 P.2d 976 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hoibron, 80 Hawai`i 27, 32 n.12, 904 P

2009In order to “determine whether reversal is required under [Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure] Rule 52(a) because of improper remarks by a prosecutor which could affect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, we apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review.” State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai'i 517, 528 , 923 P.2d 934, 945 (App.1996), ce rt. denied, 84 Hawai'i 127 , 930 P.2d 1015 (1996) (quoting State v. Suka, 79 Hawai'i 293, 301 , 901 P.2d 1272, 1280 (App.1995), cert. denied, 79 Hawai'i 341 , 902 P.2d 976 (1995), overruled on other *174 grounds by State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai‘i 27, 32 n.

1997“To determine whether reversal is required under HRPP Rule 52(a) because of improper remarks by a prosecutor which could affect Defendant’s right to a fair trial, we apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

1996“Prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial or the setting aside of a guilty verdict only where the actions of the prosecutor have caused prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. McGriff, 76 Hawai'i 148, 158 , 871 P.2d 782, 792 (1994) (citations omitted). “[T]o determine whether reversal is required under HRPP Rule 52(a) because of improper remarks by a prosecutor which could affect Defendant’s right to a fair trial, we apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review.” State v. Suka, 79 Hawai'i 293, 301 , 901 P.2d 1272, 1280 (App.), cert. denied, 79 Hawa

2009In order to "determine whether reversal is required under [Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure] Rule 52(a) because of improper remarks by a prosecutor which could affect a defendant's right to a fair trial, we apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review," State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai`i 517, 528, 923 P.2d 934, 945 (App. 1996), cert. denied, 84 Hawai`i 127, 930 P.2d 1015 (1996) (quoting State v. Saka, 79 Hawai`i 293, 301, 901 P.2d 1272, 1280 (App. 1995), cert. denied, 79 Hawai`i 341, 902 P.2d 976 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hoibron, 80 Hawai`i 27, 32 n.12, 904 P

2009In order to “determine whether reversal is required under [Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure] Rule 52(a) because of improper remarks by a prosecutor which could affect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, we apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review.” State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai'i 517, 528 , 923 P.2d 934, 945 (App.1996), ce rt. denied, 84 Hawai'i 127 , 930 P.2d 1015 (1996) (quoting State v. Suka, 79 Hawai'i 293, 301 , 901 P.2d 1272, 1280 (App.1995), cert. denied, 79 Hawai'i 341 , 902 P.2d 976 (1995), overruled on other *174 grounds by State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai‘i 27, 32 n.

2013Suka also recognized that some other “specific constitutional right[s] [] ostensibly requir[e] the application of the ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard.’” Suka, 79 Hawai'i at 299 , 901 P.2d at 1278 ; see Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 .

2013Suka also recognized that some other “specific constitutional right[s] [] ostensibly requir[e] the application of the ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard.’” Suka, 79 Hawai'i at 299 , 901 P.2d at 1278 ; see Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 .

2018The State appears to suggest that a different standard for measuring harmless error should apply here because the failure of the district court to engage Ui in a Murray colloquy was not "constitutional error per se ." "Because a defendant may not be convicted of an offense except upon proof establishing his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we question whether a standard more lenient than the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is ever appropriate in criminal cases." State v. Malufau , 80 Hawai'i 126 , 131, 906 P.2d 612 , 617, order on reconsideration (1995); see also State v. Ho

2018The State appears to suggest that a different standard for measuring harmless error should apply here because the failure of the district court to engage Ui in a Murray colloquy was not "constitutional error per se ." "Because a defendant may not be convicted of an offense except upon proof establishing his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we question whether a standard more lenient than the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is ever appropriate in criminal cases." State v. Malufau , 80 Hawai'i 126 , 131, 906 P.2d 612 , 617, order on reconsideration (1995); see also State v. Ho

2026"In applying the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the court is required to examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Jones, 148 Hawaiʻi 152, 170, 468 P.3d 166, 184 (2020) (citation omitted). 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The district court's voluntariness determination is set forth in the following findings of fact (FOFs) and conclusions of law (COLs) 3: [FOF] 20.

2025See State v. Jones, 148 Hawai#i 152, 170, 468 P.3d 166, 184 (2020) ("Erroneously admitted evidence is evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard." (quoting State v. Matsumoto, 145 Hawai#i 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2013Suka also recognized that some other “specific constitutional right[s] [] ostensibly requir[e] the application of the ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard.’” Suka, 79 Hawai'i at 299 , 901 P.2d at 1278 ; see Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 .

2013Suka also recognized that some other “specific constitutional right[s] [] ostensibly requir[e] the application of the ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard.’” Suka, 79 Hawai'i at 299 , 901 P.2d at 1278 ; see Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 .

2026Hearsay "Where the admissibility of evidence is determined by application of the hearsay rule, there can be only one correct result, and the appropriate standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard." State v. Abrigo, 144 Hawai‘i 491, 497, 445 P.3d 72, 78 (2019) (cleaned up). 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Prosecutorial Misconduct "Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility

2026Hearsay "Where the admissibility of evidence is determined by application of the hearsay rule, there can be only one correct result, and the appropriate standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard." State v. Abrigo, 144 Hawai‘i 491, 497, 445 P.3d 72, 78 (2019) (cleaned up). 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Prosecutorial Misconduct "Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility

2019As we stated in State v. Sawyer: Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Factors considered are: (1) the nature of the conduct; (2) the promptness of a curative instruction; and (3) the strength or weakness of the evidence against the defendant. 88 Hawaiʻi 325, 329 n.6, 966 P.2d 637 , 641 n.6 (1998) (quoting State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawaiʻi 109, 11

2008See also Wakisaka , 102 Hawai`i at 513, 78 P.3d at 326 (stating that "allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard . . . [and f]actors considered are: (1) the nature of the conduct; (2) the promptness of a curative instruction; and (3) the strength or weakness of the evidence against the defendant"). [10] The analysis in Sections VI to X, supra, subsumes factors of prosecutorial misconduct claimed by Petitioner inasmuch as the majority of such factors would weigh in favor of the Petitioner because the prosecutor misstated the law an

2022"In applying the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard[,] the court is required to examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." Id. at 481, 463 P.3d at 1138 (quoting State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai#i 339, 368, 219 P.3d 1126, 1155 (2009)).

2020“In applying the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard[,] the court is required to examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Mundon, 121 Hawaiʻi 339, 368, 219 P.3d 1126, 1155 (2009) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawaiʻi 109, 114, 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (1996)).

2025See State v. Jones, 148 Hawai#i 152, 170, 468 P.3d 166, 184 (2020) ("Erroneously admitted evidence is evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard." (quoting State v. Matsumoto, 145 Hawai#i 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2025See State v. Jones, 148 Hawai#i 152, 170, 468 P.3d 166, 184 (2020) ("Erroneously admitted evidence is evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard." (quoting State v. Matsumoto, 145 Hawai#i 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2018“The relevant question under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to [the] conviction.” Han, 130 Hawaii at 93, 306 P.3d at 138 (quoting State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawaii 432, 450, 279 P.3d 1237, 1255 (2012)). 21 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** Had Eduwensuyi testified, he may have been able to contest the State’s case and shed light on whether he operated a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1).

2017Under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, “[t]he relevant question . . . is whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to [the] conviction.” Id., 306 P.3d at 138 (quoting State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawaiʻi 432, 450, 279 P.3d 1237, 1255 (2012)). 32

2016See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 363 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (The reasonable-doubt standard "provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence—that bedrock 'axiomatic and elementary' principle whose ’enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law’ ’’ (quoting *223 Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 , 15 S.Ct. 394 , 39 L.Ed. 481 (1895))). 29 .

2016See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 363 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (The reasonable-doubt standard "provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence—that bedrock 'axiomatic and elementary' principle whose ’enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law’ ’’ (quoting *223 Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 , 15 S.Ct. 394 , 39 L.Ed. 481 (1895))). 29 .

2017The harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard “requires an examination of the record and a determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Id. (quoting State v. Iuli, 101 Hawai'i 196, 204 , 66 P.3d 143, 161 (2003)).

2012Having determined that the DPA’s statements amounted to misconduct, we must decide whether such misconduct warrants vacation. “‘Allegations of prosecu-torial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard,’ ” and do not warrant vacation or reversal unless “ ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’” State v. Mainaaupo, 117 Hawai'i 235, 247 , 178 P.3d 1, 13 (2008) (quoting State v. Iuli, 101 Hawai'i 196, 204 , 65 P.3d 143, 151 (2003)).

2026"The relevant question under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Eduwensuyi, 141 Hawaiʻi 328, 336, 409 P.3d 732, 740 (2018) (cleaned up) (quoting State v. Han, 130 Hawaiʻi 83, 93, 306 P.3d 128, 138 (2013)).

2026"The relevant question under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Eduwensuyi, 141 Hawaiʻi 328, 336, 409 P.3d 732 , 740 (2018) (cleaned up) (quoting State v. Han, 130 Hawaiʻi 83, 93, 306 P.3d 128, 138 (2013)).

2025"Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of 'whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'" Austin, 143 Hawai#i at 28–29, 422 P.3d at 28–29 (citing State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai#i 325, 329 n.6, 966 P.2d 637 , 641 n.6 (1998) (quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai#i at 114, 924 P.2d at 1220 ).

2021"Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of 'whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'" Austin, 143 Hawai#i at 28, 422 P.3d at 28 (citing State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai#i 325, 329 n.6, 966 P.2d 637 , 641 n.6 (1998) (quoting State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai#i 109, 114, 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (1996))).

1998The violation of a defendant’s rights under the Hawai'i Constitution is reviewed under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt rule.” State v. Silva, 78 Hawai'i 115, 125 , 890 P.2d 702, 712 (App.1995).

1998The violation of a defendant’s rights under the Hawai'i Constitution is reviewed under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt rule.” State v. Silva, 78 Hawai'i 115, 125 , 890 P.2d 702, 712 (App.1995).

2017The harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard “requires an examination of the record and a determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Id. (quoting State v. Iuli, 101 Hawai'i 196, 204 , 66 P.3d 143, 161 (2003)).

2012Having determined that the DPA’s statements amounted to misconduct, we must decide whether such misconduct warrants vacation. “‘Allegations of prosecu-torial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard,’ ” and do not warrant vacation or reversal unless “ ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’” State v. Mainaaupo, 117 Hawai'i 235, 247 , 178 P.3d 1, 13 (2008) (quoting State v. Iuli, 101 Hawai'i 196, 204 , 65 P.3d 143, 151 (2003)).

2023"The 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER erroneous admission of evidence is not harmless when there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Baker, 147 Hawai#i 413, 435, 465 P.3d 860, 882 (2020) (emphasis added) (citing State v. McCrory, 104 Hawai#i 203, 210, 87 P.3d 275, 282 (2004)).

2020See 95 Hawaiʻi at 422-27, 23 P.3d at 757 - 62. 35 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** “the error was harmless because there was substantial other evidence supporting Jones’s OVUII conviction.” “Erroneously admitted evidence is evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard.” State v. Matsumoto, 145 Hawaiʻi 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019) (citing State v. McCrory, 104 Hawaiʻi 203, 210, 87 P.3d 275, 282 (2004)).

2020Acacio, 140 Hawaii at 101 n.3, 398 P.3d at 690 n.3 (noting that this step in the analysis is not necessary when the threshold level of inquiry under the confrontation clause is not met). 27 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** applying the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard the court is required to examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Id. (quoting State v. Pond, 118 Hawaii 452, 461, 193 P.3d 368, 377 (2008)).

2020"In applying the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard[,] the court is required to examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." Id. (quoting State v. Pond, 118 Hawai#i 452, 461, 193 P.3d 368, 377 (2008)); see Brown, 145 Hawai#i at 63, 446 P.3d at 980 ("the ultimate question is whether the erroneous exclusion of additional evidence could have reasonably affected the jury’s verdict").

2019If such a reasonable possibility exists, then "the judgment of conviction on which it may have been based must be set aside." State v. Gano , 92 Hawai'i 161 , 176, 988 P.2d 1153 , 1168 (1999) (quoting State v. Pulse , 83 Hawai'i 229 , 248, 925 P.2d 797 , 816 (1996) ).

2019If such a reasonable possibility exists, then "the judgment of conviction on which it may have been based must be set aside." State v. Gano , 92 Hawai'i 161 , 176, 988 P.2d 1153 , 1168 (1999) (quoting State v. Pulse , 83 Hawai'i 229 , 248, 925 P.2d 797 , 816 (1996) ).

2021When the ultimate colloquy is not given, however, a Lewis violation is evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard." State v. Torres, 144 Hawai#i 282, 291 n.10, 439 P.3d 234 , 243 n.10 (2019) (construing 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER Lewis, 94 Hawai#i at 297, 12 P.3d at 1238 , and Tachibana, 79 Hawai#i at 237, 240, 900 P.2d at 1304, 1307 ).

2017Under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, “[t]he relevant question . . . is whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to [the] conviction.” Id., 306 P.3d at 138 (quoting State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawaiʻi 432, 450, 279 P.3d 1237, 1255 (2012)). 32