parental discipline defense in Hawaii

2013This court explained that “[i]n order to invoke the parental discipline defense a defendant is required to make a showing that the record contained some evidence supporting [four different] elements.” 19 Id.; accord State v. Crouser, 81 Hawai'i 5, 10-11 , 911 P.2d 725, 730-31 (1996).

2013This court explained that “[i]n order to invoke the parental discipline defense a defendant is required to make a showing that the record contained some evidence supporting [four different] elements.” 19 Id.; accord State v. Crouser, 81 Hawai'i 5, 10-11 , 911 P.2d 725, 730-31 (1996).

2011As to the first element of the parental discipline defense, Respondent asserted that “[t]he scope of HRS § 703-309 extends to, ‘a parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor[.]” According to Respondent, “it was undisputed that [he] was [Complainant’s] step-father ... and that he basically raised [Complainant] as his own son.” As to the second element, Respondent maintained that it was undisputed that he, as Complainant’s step-father, “was responsible for supporting, caring for and disciplining [Complainant].” Respondent pointed out t

2011As to the first element of the parental discipline defense, Respondent asserted that “[t]he scope of HRS § 703-309 extends to, ‘a parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor[.]” According to Respondent, “it was undisputed that [he] was [Complainant’s] step-father ... and that he basically raised [Complainant] as his own son.” As to the second element, Respondent maintained that it was undisputed that he, as Complainant’s step-father, “was responsible for supporting, caring for and disciplining [Complainant].” Respondent pointed out t

2016The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable under the following circumstances: (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor, or a person acting at the request of the parent, guardian, or other responsible person, and: (a) The force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct[.] This court then stated that the pare

2016The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable under the following circumstances: (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor, or a person acting at the request of the parent, guardian, or other responsible person, and: (a) The force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct[.] This court then stated that the pare

2011As to the first element of the parental discipline defense, Respondent asserted that “[t]he scope of HRS § 703-309 extends to, ‘a parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor[.]” According to Respondent, “it was undisputed that [he] was [Complainant’s] step-father ... and that he basically raised [Complainant] as his own son.” As to the second element, Respondent maintained that it was undisputed that he, as Complainant’s step-father, “was responsible for supporting, caring for and disciplining [Complainant].” Respondent pointed out t

2011As to the first element of the parental discipline defense, Respondent asserted that “[t]he scope of HRS § 703-309 extends to, ‘a parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor[.]” According to Respondent, “it was undisputed that [he] was [Complainant’s] step-father ... and that he basically raised [Complainant] as his own son.” As to the second element, Respondent maintained that it was undisputed that he, as Complainant’s step-father, “was responsible for supporting, caring for and disciplining [Complainant].” Respondent pointed out t

2013In that ease this court considered whether the court erred in failing to instruct jurors on the parental discipline defense after defense counsel had asked for the instruction. 125 Hawai'i at 84 , 253 P.3d at 645 .

2013In that ease this court considered whether the court erred in failing to instruct jurors on the parental discipline defense after defense counsel had asked for the instruction. 125 Hawai'i at 84 , 253 P.3d at 645 .

2011(Citing State v. Tanielu, 82 Hawai'i 373, 381 , 922 P.2d 986, 994 (App.1996) (noting that, there, the ICA upheld the trial court’s denial of a parental discipline defense instruction, where the fourteen-year-old “daughter was punched (with a closed fist in the face), [and] slapped and kicked”)).

2011(Citing State v. Tanielu, 82 Hawai'i 373, 381 , 922 P.2d 986, 994 (App.1996) (noting that, there, the ICA upheld the trial court’s denial of a parental discipline defense instruction, where the fourteen-year-old “daughter was punched (with a closed fist in the face), [and] slapped and kicked”)).

2011Id. at 482 , 199 P.3d at 71 .

2008See Gano , 92 Hawai`i at 176, 988 P.2d at 1168 .

2012The burden then shifts to the State to “disprove the justification evidence that was adduced or to prove facts negativing the justification defense, and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345, 350 , 841 P.2d 1076, 1079 (1992) (citations omitted).

2012The burden then shifts to the State to “disprove the justification evidence that was adduced or to prove facts negativing the justification defense, and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345, 350 , 841 P.2d 1076, 1079 (1992) (citations omitted).

2011Like the ICA dissent, the dissent maintains that it may make this determination because “ ‘an appellate court may affirm the judgment of a trial court on any ground in the record that supports affirmance.’ ” Id. at 99 n. 1, 253 P.3d at 660 n. 1 (quoting State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawai'i 498, 506 , 60 P.3d 899, 907 (2002)) (brackets omitted) (emphasis added).

2011Like the ICA dissent, the dissent maintains that it may make this determination because “ ‘an appellate court may affirm the judgment of a trial court on any ground in the record that supports affirmance.’ ” Id. at 99 n. 1, 253 P.3d at 660 n. 1 (quoting State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawai'i 498, 506 , 60 P.3d 899, 907 (2002)) (brackets omitted) (emphasis added).

2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).

2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).

2011Because on appeal, we “will not attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence,” State v. Gabrillo, 10 Haw.App. 448, 457 , 877 P.2d 891, 895 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), we cannot conclude as a matter of law that under the circumstances the force used by Respondent was designed to cause substantial bodily injury- B.

2011Because on appeal, we “will not attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence,” State v. Gabrillo, 10 Haw.App. 448, 457 , 877 P.2d 891, 895 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), we cannot conclude as a matter of law that under the circumstances the force used by Respondent was designed to cause substantial bodily injury- B.

2011Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning[.]’” Kepoo v. Kane, 106 Hawai'i 270, 285 , 103 P.3d 939, 954 (2005) (quoting Schmidt v. Bd. of Directors of Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo Apartments, 73 Haw. 526, 531-32 , 836 P.2d 479, 482 (1992)) (ellipsis omitted).

2011Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning[.]’” Kepoo v. Kane, 106 Hawai'i 270, 285 , 103 P.3d 939, 954 (2005) (quoting Schmidt v. Bd. of Directors of Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo Apartments, 73 Haw. 526, 531-32 , 836 P.2d 479, 482 (1992)) (ellipsis omitted).

2011Respondent maintained that a defendant is “entitled to an instruction on any defense or theory of the defense supported by the evidence, ‘no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive.’ ” (Quoting State v. Auld, 114 Hawai'i 135, 144 , 157 P.3d 574, 583 (2007).) In order to invoke the parental discipline defense, a defendant is required to make a showing that the record contained some evidence supporting the following elements: (1) [the defendant] was a parent, guardian, or other person as described in HRS § 703-309(1); (2) [the defendant] used force against a minor for whose care and sup

2011Respondent maintained that a defendant is “entitled to an instruction on any defense or theory of the defense supported by the evidence, ‘no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive.’ ” (Quoting State v. Auld, 114 Hawai'i 135, 144 , 157 P.3d 574, 583 (2007).) In order to invoke the parental discipline defense, a defendant is required to make a showing that the record contained some evidence supporting the following elements: (1) [the defendant] was a parent, guardian, or other person as described in HRS § 703-309(1); (2) [the defendant] used force against a minor for whose care and sup

2011Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning[.]’” Kepoo v. Kane, 106 Hawai'i 270, 285 , 103 P.3d 939, 954 (2005) (quoting Schmidt v. Bd. of Directors of Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo Apartments, 73 Haw. 526, 531-32 , 836 P.2d 479, 482 (1992)) (ellipsis omitted).

2011Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning[.]’” Kepoo v. Kane, 106 Hawai'i 270, 285 , 103 P.3d 939, 954 (2005) (quoting Schmidt v. Bd. of Directors of Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo Apartments, 73 Haw. 526, 531-32 , 836 P.2d 479, 482 (1992)) (ellipsis omitted).

2010See State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1, 8 , 155 P.3d 1102, 1109 (2007) ("Matters of credibility and the weight of the evidence and the inferences to be drawn are for the fact finder.") Hence, the family court erred by not submitting the instruction on the parental discipline defense to the jury.

2010See State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1, 8 , 155 P.3d 1102, 1109 (2007) ("Matters of credibility and the weight of the evidence and the inferences to be drawn are for the fact finder.") Hence, the family court erred by not submitting the instruction on the parental discipline defense to the jury.

2008See id. at ___, 193 P.3d at 841 .

2008See id. at ___, 193 P.3d at 841 .

2007In Deleon , Artemio A. Deleon ("Deleon") was convicted of the offense of Abuse of Family or Household Members. 72 Haw. at 241, 813 P.2d at 1382 .

2007In Deleon , Artemio A. Deleon ("Deleon") was convicted of the offense of Abuse of Family or Household Members. 72 Haw. at 241, 813 P.2d at 1382 .

2007In Deleon , Artemio A. Deleon (“Deleon”) was convicted of the offense of Abuse of Family or Household Members. 72 Haw. at 241 , 818 P.2d at 1382.

1999That being the case, the defense was available to Stocker so long as some evidence was adduced, “no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory” it might be, see Lee, at 137, 976 P.2d at 451 n. 6; State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 907 P.2d 758, 765 (1995); State v. Nobriga, 10 Haw.App. 353, 359 , 873 P.2d 110, 113 (1994), which was probative of the facts that (1) Stocker had parental authority over Shane, see supra section III.B.l, (2) the force at issue was “employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor,” see HRS § 703-309(l)(a), and (3) the force was “reasonably propo

1999That being the case, the defense was available to Stocker so long as some evidence was adduced, “no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory” it might be, see Lee, at 137, 976 P.2d at 451 n. 6; State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 907 P.2d 758, 765 (1995); State v. Nobriga, 10 Haw.App. 353, 359 , 873 P.2d 110, 113 (1994), which was probative of the facts that (1) Stocker had parental authority over Shane, see supra section III.B.l, (2) the force at issue was “employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor,” see HRS § 703-309(l)(a), and (3) the force was “reasonably propo

1999That being the case, the defense was available to Stocker so long as some evidence was adduced, “no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory” it might be, see Lee, at 137, 976 P.2d at 451 n. 6; State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 907 P.2d 758, 765 (1995); State v. Nobriga, 10 Haw.App. 353, 359 , 873 P.2d 110, 113 (1994), which was probative of the facts that (1) Stocker had parental authority over Shane, see supra section III.B.l, (2) the force at issue was “employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor,” see HRS § 703-309(l)(a), and (3) the force was “reasonably propo

1999That being the case, the defense was available to Stocker so long as some evidence was adduced, “no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory” it might be, see Lee, at 137, 976 P.2d at 451 n. 6; State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 907 P.2d 758, 765 (1995); State v. Nobriga, 10 Haw.App. 353, 359 , 873 P.2d 110, 113 (1994), which was probative of the facts that (1) Stocker had parental authority over Shane, see supra section III.B.l, (2) the force at issue was “employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor,” see HRS § 703-309(l)(a), and (3) the force was “reasonably propo

1999That being the case, the defense was available to Stocker so long as some evidence was adduced, “no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory” it might be, see Lee, at 137, 976 P.2d at 451 n. 6; State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 907 P.2d 758, 765 (1995); State v. Nobriga, 10 Haw.App. 353, 359 , 873 P.2d 110, 113 (1994), which was probative of the facts that (1) Stocker had parental authority over Shane, see supra section III.B.l, (2) the force at issue was “employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor,” see HRS § 703-309(l)(a), and (3) the force was “reasonably propo

1999Cf. Lee, at 136-139, 976 P.2d at 450-53 (holding that a defendant in a prosecution for operation without no-fault insurance bears the initial burden of production with respect to the non-affirmative defense of self-insurance).