refused instruction in Hawaii

1997Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.’ ” Montalvo, 77 Hawai'i at 286 , 884 P.2d at 349 (quoting Pioneer Mill, 64 Haw. at 180 , 637 P.2d at 1140 (ellipsis points in original)); see also Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawai'i 494, 504 , 880 P.2d 169, 179 (1994) (“The trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing a requested instruction that is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law.”).

1997Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.’ ” Montalvo, 77 Hawai'i at 286 , 884 P.2d at 349 (quoting Pioneer Mill, 64 Haw. at 180 , 637 P.2d at 1140 (ellipsis points in original)); see also Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawai'i 494, 504 , 880 P.2d 169, 179 (1994) (“The trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing a requested instruction that is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law.”).

1997Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.’ ” Montalvo, 77 Hawai'i at 286 , 884 P.2d at 349 (quoting Pioneer Mill, 64 Haw. at 180 , 637 P.2d at 1140 (ellipsis points in original)); see also Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawai'i 494, 504 , 880 P.2d 169, 179 (1994) (“The trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing a requested instruction that is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law.”).

1997Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.’ ” Montalvo, 77 Hawai'i at 286 , 884 P.2d at 349 (quoting Pioneer Mill, 64 Haw. at 180 , 637 P.2d at 1140 (ellipsis points in original)); see also Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawai'i 494, 504 , 880 P.2d 169, 179 (1994) (“The trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing a requested instruction that is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law.”).

1997The trial judge does not exceed the limits of his discretion by reason of his refusal of a requested instruction which is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law. *372 Tittle v. Hurlbutt, 53 Haw. 526, 530-31 , 497 P.2d 1354, 1357 (1972) (citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted).

1997The trial judge does not exceed the limits of his discretion by reason of his refusal of a requested instruction which is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law. *372 Tittle v. Hurlbutt, 53 Haw. 526, 530-31 , 497 P.2d 1354, 1357 (1972) (citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

2025"Jury instructions on lesser-included offenses must be given where there is a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting the defendant of the included offense." State v. Angei, 152 Hawai#i 484, 492, 526 P.3d 461, 469 (2023).

2025"Jury instructions on lesser-included offenses must be given where there is a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting the defendant of the included offense." State v. Angei, 152 Hawai#i 484, 492, 526 P.3d 461, 469 (2023).

2013In Locquiao, as noted, defense counsel had requested an ignorance-or-mistake-of-fact defense, and the court refused the instruction. 100 Hawai'i at 201 , 58 P.3d at 1248 .

2013In Locquiao, as noted, defense counsel had requested an ignorance-or-mistake-of-fact defense, and the court refused the instruction. 100 Hawai'i at 201 , 58 P.3d at 1248 .

2009This is true even where the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law."); State v. Hassard, 45 Haw. 221, 230 , 365 P.2d 202, 207 (1961) (noting that where the jury instructions accurately defined the essential elements of the charged offense, the circuit court did not err in refusing to give defendant's supplemental instruction and "the matter intended to be covered by [defendant's] instruction was one for argument of counsel and not instruction of the court"); and State v. Fetterly, 886 P.2d 780, 781-82 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995) (holding that in a prosecution for wilful concealment, t

2009This is true even where the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law."); State v. Hassard, 45 Haw. 221, 230 , 365 P.2d 202, 207 (1961) (noting that where the jury instructions accurately defined the essential elements of the charged offense, the circuit court did not err in refusing to give defendant's supplemental instruction and "the matter intended to be covered by [defendant's] instruction was one for argument of counsel and not instruction of the court"); and State v. Fetterly, 886 P.2d 780, 781-82 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995) (holding that in a prosecution for wilful concealment, t

2009This is true even where the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law."); State v. Hassard, 45 Haw. 221, 230 , 365 P.2d 202, 207 (1961) (noting that where the jury instructions accurately defined the essential elements of the charged offense, the circuit court did not err in refusing to give defendant's supplemental instruction and "the matter intended to be covered by [defendant's] instruction was one for argument of counsel and not instruction of the court"); and State v. Fetterly, 886 P.2d 780, 781-82 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995) (holding that in a prosecution for wilful concealment, t

2001State v. Stuart, 51 Haw. 656, 660-61 , 466 P.2d 444, 447 (1970) (citations omitted).

2001State v. Stuart, 51 Haw. 656, 660-61 , 466 P.2d 444, 447 (1970) (citations omitted).

1997See In re Estate of Lorenzo, 61 Haw. 236, 244 , 602 P.2d 521, 528 (1979) (“The question on review of instructions is not whether they were technically correct but whether the appellant could have suffered prejudice on their account.”).

1997See In re Estate of Lorenzo, 61 Haw. 236, 244 , 602 P.2d 521, 528 (1979) (“The question on review of instructions is not whether they were technically correct but whether the appellant could have suffered prejudice on their account.”).

1997See, e.g., Craft, 78 Hawai'i at 302 , 893 P.2d at 153 (“When jury instructions, or the omission thereof, are at issue on appeal, ‘the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent or misleading.’ ”) (citations omitted); State v. Lincoln, 3 Haw.App. 107, 117 , 643 P.2d 807, 815 (1982) (“The issue is not whether the refused instruction is a correct statement.

1997See, e.g., Craft, 78 Hawai'i at 302 , 893 P.2d at 153 (“When jury instructions, or the omission thereof, are at issue on appeal, ‘the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent or misleading.’ ”) (citations omitted); State v. Lincoln, 3 Haw.App. 107, 117 , 643 P.2d 807, 815 (1982) (“The issue is not whether the refused instruction is a correct statement.

1997Finally, we have held that it is not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse to give requested jury instructions that “single out and unduly emphasize certain facts,” in order to avoid the “injustice” of “misleading the jury into thinking that because the court has specifically referred to these facts, the court believes them to be true.” Id. at 532 , 497 P.2d at 1358 (citations omitted); see also Gelber v. Sheraton-Hawaii Corp., 49 Haw. 327, 331 , 417 P.2d 638, 640 (1966) (“This court has pointed out that an instruction which singles out and unduly emphasizes certain facts, tends t

1997Finally, we have held that it is not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse to give requested jury instructions that “single out and unduly emphasize certain facts,” in order to avoid the “injustice” of “misleading the jury into thinking that because the court has specifically referred to these facts, the court believes them to be true.” Id. at 532 , 497 P.2d at 1358 (citations omitted); see also Gelber v. Sheraton-Hawaii Corp., 49 Haw. 327, 331 , 417 P.2d 638, 640 (1966) (“This court has pointed out that an instruction which singles out and unduly emphasizes certain facts, tends t

1997See Richardson, 76 Hawai'i at 504 , 880 P.2d at 179 (“Whether a jury instruction properly states the law is a question that this court will review de novo.”) (citing S. Utsunomiya Enters., Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club, 75 Haw. 480, 506 , 866 P.2d 951, 965 (1994)).

1997See Richardson, 76 Hawai'i at 504 , 880 P.2d at 179 (“Whether a jury instruction properly states the law is a question that this court will review de novo.”) (citing S. Utsunomiya Enters., Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club, 75 Haw. 480, 506 , 866 P.2d 951, 965 (1994)).

1997See, e.g., Craft, 78 Hawai'i at 302 , 893 P.2d at 153 (“When jury instructions, or the omission thereof, are at issue on appeal, ‘the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent or misleading.’ ”) (citations omitted); State v. Lincoln, 3 Haw.App. 107, 117 , 643 P.2d 807, 815 (1982) (“The issue is not whether the refused instruction is a correct statement.

1997See, e.g., Craft, 78 Hawai'i at 302 , 893 P.2d at 153 (“When jury instructions, or the omission thereof, are at issue on appeal, ‘the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent or misleading.’ ”) (citations omitted); State v. Lincoln, 3 Haw.App. 107, 117 , 643 P.2d 807, 815 (1982) (“The issue is not whether the refused instruction is a correct statement.

1994State v. Pioneer Mill Co., 64 Haw. 168, 180 , 637 P.2d 1131, 1140 (1981); see also State v. Pinero, 75 Haw. 282, 290-92 , 859 P.2d 1369, 1374 (1993).

1994State v. Pioneer Mill Co., 64 Haw. 168, 180 , 637 P.2d 1131, 1140 (1981); see also State v. Pinero, 75 Haw. 282, 290-92 , 859 P.2d 1369, 1374 (1993).

1977We hold that the correct statement of law regarding circumstantial evidence is contained in Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 (1954): Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result.

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972The trial judge does not exceed the limits of his discretion by reason of his refusal of a requested instruction which is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law, Carson v. Saito, 53 Haw. 178, 180 , 489 P.2d 636, 637 (1971); Ashford v. Thos.

1972The trial judge does not exceed the limits of his discretion by reason of his refusal of a requested instruction which is substantially covered by other instructions, even when the refused instruction is a correct statement of the law, Carson v. Saito, 53 Haw. 178, 180 , 489 P.2d 636, 637 (1971); Ashford v. Thos.

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).

1972Cook & Son (Bankers) Ltd., 52 Haw. 113, 122 , 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304 , 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98 , 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967); Collins v. Shishido, 48 Haw. 411, 418-19 , 405 P.2d 323, 328 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 108 , 395 P.2d 932, 937 (1964); Estate of Ching, 46 Haw. 127, 129 , 376 P.2d 125, 127 (1962).