harmless error in Hawaii

2017Therefore, we conclude that the sidebar procedure followed here violated Hilario’s right to be present under HRPP Rule 43. 17 This does not end our inquiry, as violations of HRPP Rule 43 are analyzed under a harmless error standard, where we determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Pauline, 100 Hawai'i 356, 378 , 60 P.3d 306, 328 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017Therefore, we conclude that the sidebar procedure followed here violated Hilario’s right to be present under HRPP Rule 43. 17 This does not end our inquiry, as violations of HRPP Rule 43 are analyzed under a harmless error standard, where we determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Pauline, 100 Hawai'i 356, 378 , 60 P.3d 306, 328 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2023Our application of the harmless error rule in criminal cases is narrower, and the ultimate standard must always be “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to conviction.” See Aplaca, 96 Hawaiʻi at 25, 27 n.7, 25 P.3d at 800 , 802 n.7 (quoting State v. Gano, 92 Hawaiʻi 161, 176, 988 P.2d 1153, 1168 (1999)).

2017“If there is such a reasonable possibility in a criminal ease, then the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawaiʻi 17, 25, 25 P.3d 792, 800 (2001) (emphasis added) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is a wealth of overwhelming and compelling evidence tending to show the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are deemed harmless.” State v. Veikoso, 126 Hawai‘i 267, 276, 270 P.3d 997, 1006 (2011) (quoting State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai‘i 8, 27, 904 P.2d 893, 912 (1995)). “[A] narrow or strict application of the harmless error rule appropriately protects a defendant’s rights and the integrity of the trial process.” Aplaca, 96 Hawaiʻi at

2023State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawaiʻi 17, 25, 25 P.3d 792, 800 (2001) (emphasis added) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is a wealth of overwhelming and compelling evidence tending to show the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are deemed harmless.” State v. Veikoso, 126 Hawai‘i 267, 276, 270 P.3d 997, 1006 (2011) (quoting State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai‘i 8, 27, 904 P.2d 893, 912 (1995)). “[A] narrow or strict application of the harmless error rule appropriately protects a defendant’s rights and the integrity of the trial process.” Aplaca, 96 Hawaiʻi at

2026See State v. Apo, 82 Hawaiʻi 394, 403, 922 P.2d 1007, 1016 (App. 1996) ("The admission of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial following the erroneous denial of a motion to suppress is subject to the harmless error rule." (citation omitted)). (2) Puerto points to an alleged lack of evidence and allegedly improperly admitted evidence to argue that his MJOA should have been granted, because the State "did not establish adequate evidence" of Puerto's "intent to meet with the supposed minor for the purpose of committing a felony or other crime"; 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI R

2026See State v. Apo, 82 Hawaiʻi 394, 403, 922 P.2d 1007, 1016 (App. 1996) ("The admission of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial following the erroneous denial of a motion to suppress is subject to the harmless error rule." (citation omitted)). (2) Puerto points to an alleged lack of evidence and allegedly improperly admitted evidence to argue that his MJOA should have been granted, because the State "did not establish adequate evidence" of Puerto's "intent to meet with the supposed minor for the purpose of committing a felony or other crime"; 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI R

2026See Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi at 435, 465 P.3d at 882 (explaining that an erroneous admission of a confession is subject to the harmless error analysis on appeal).

2023"The 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) (citing State v. McCrory, 104 Hawai#i 203, 210, 87 P.3d 275, 282 (2004)).

2014The prosecution concluded that based on this evidence “there was no rational basis to support the contention that the jury could have rationally acquitted Defendant of Reckless Manslaughter and convicted him of [Assault in the First Degree].” The ICA issued a Summary Disposition Order (SDO) affirming the circuit court judgment (judgment) relying on the holding in State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai'i 405 , 16 P.3d 246 (2001), that “when the jury convicts the defendant of the charged offense or a greater included offense, a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is a harmless erro

2014The prosecution concluded that based on this evidence “there was no rational basis to support the contention that the jury could have rationally acquitted Defendant of Reckless Manslaughter and convicted him of [Assault in the First Degree].” The ICA issued a Summary Disposition Order (SDO) affirming the circuit court judgment (judgment) relying on the holding in State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai'i 405 , 16 P.3d 246 (2001), that “when the jury convicts the defendant of the charged offense or a greater included offense, a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is a harmless erro

2023"The 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) (citing State v. McCrory, 104 Hawai#i 203, 210, 87 P.3d 275, 282 (2004)).

2021State v. Matsumoto, 145 Hawai#i 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019) (citing State v. McCrory, 104 Hawai#i 203, 210, 87 P.3d 275, 282 (2004)); see State v. Apo, 82 Haw. 394, 403 , 922 P.2d 1007, 1016 (App. 1996) ("The admission of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial following the erroneous denial of a motion to suppress is subject to the harmless error rule.").

2019State v. Mara, 98 Hawai‘i1, 16-17, 41 P.3d 157, 172-73 (2002).

2019State v. Mara, 98 Hawai‘i i, 16, 41 P.3d 157, 172 (2002).

2019See , e.g. , Farrell , 866 F.2d at 1299-1300 ; Webb v. Sloan , 330 F.3d 1158 , 1166 (9th Cir. 2003).

2019See, @.qg., Farrell, 866 F.2d at 1299-1300; Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003).

2015Cramer, 129 Hawai'i at 303 , 299 P.3d at 763 . *390 III.

2013Inasmuch as requiring a showing of prejudice will inevitably require the trial and appellate courts to engage in fruitless speculation, see Hosner, 123 Cal.Rptr. 381 , 538 P.2d at 1148 ; cf. Cramer, at 303, 299 P.3d at 764 , the application of the harmless error standard in Razinha and Bamberger should not be followed. .

2015Under the harmless error standard, we “must ‘determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”’ State v. Pauline, 100 Hawai'i 356, 378 , 60 P.3d 306, 328 (2002) (quoting State v. White, 92 Hawai'i 192, 198 , 990 P.2d 90, 96 (1999)).

2015Under the harmless error standard, we “must ‘determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”’ State v. Pauline, 100 Hawai'i 356, 378 , 60 P.3d 306, 328 (2002) (quoting State v. White, 92 Hawai'i 192, 198 , 990 P.2d 90, 96 (1999)).

2012Warren v. State, 121 Nev. 886 , 124 P.3d 522, 527 (2005) (emphases added).

2012Warren v. State, 121 Nev. 886 , 124 P.3d 522, 527 (2005) (emphases added).

2012See State v. Rivera, 106 Hawai'i 146, 165-66 , 102 P.3d 1044, 1063-1064 (2004), overruled on other grounds by Maugaotega, 115 Hawai'i at 442-43 , 168 P.3d at 572-73 ; State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawai'i 17, 25 , 25 P.3d 792, 800 (2001) (“The fact that the error, in this case, implicates [defendant’s] sentence and not his conviction does not render the harmless error doctrine inapplicable.”); Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006) (holding that error involving Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. at 303-04 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , and the failure to submit a sentencing

2012See State v. Rivera, 106 Hawai'i 146, 165-66 , 102 P.3d 1044, 1063-1064 (2004), overruled on other grounds by Maugaotega, 115 Hawai'i at 442-43 , 168 P.3d at 572-73 ; State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawai'i 17, 25 , 25 P.3d 792, 800 (2001) (“The fact that the error, in this case, implicates [defendant’s] sentence and not his conviction does not render the harmless error doctrine inapplicable.”); Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006) (holding that error involving Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. at 303-04 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , and the failure to submit a sentencing

2012See State v. Hoang, 94 Hawai'i 271, 279, 12 P.3d 371, 379 (App. 2000) (concluding in a case involving Tachibana error that "it is inherently difficult . . . to divine what effect a violation of the defendant's constitutional right to testify had on the outcome of any particular case").

2012See State v. Hoang, 94 Hawai‘i 271, 279, 12 P.3d 371, 379 (App. 2000) (concluding in a case involving Tachibana error that "it is inherently difficult . . . to divine what effect a violation of the defendant's constitutional right to testify had on the outcome of any particular case").

2010Doreus v. United States, 964 A.2d 154, 157-60 (D.C. 2009) (applying harmless error analysis in deciding whether entry of judgment on lesser included fense was appropriate in light of erroneous admission of evidence) i see also Allison v. United States, 409 F.2d 445, 451 (D.C.

2010See Doreus v. United States, 964 A.2d 154, 157-60 (D.C.2009) (applying harmless error analysis in deciding whether entry of judgment on lesser included offense was appropriate in light of erroneous admission of evidence); see also Allison v. United States, 409 F.2d 445, 451 (D.C.Cir.1969) (concluding that for an appellate court to exercise its authority to enter judgment on a lesser included offense, it must be clear that “no undue prejudice will result to the accused”).

2010Doreus v. United States, 964 A.2d 154, 157-60 (D.C. 2009) (applying harmless error analysis in deciding whether entry of judgment on lesser included fense was appropriate in light of erroneous admission of evidence) i see also Allison v. United States, 409 F.2d 445, 451 (D.C.

2010See Doreus v. United States, 964 A.2d 154, 157-60 (D.C.2009) (applying harmless error analysis in deciding whether entry of judgment on lesser included offense was appropriate in light of erroneous admission of evidence); see also Allison v. United States, 409 F.2d 445, 451 (D.C.Cir.1969) (concluding that for an appellate court to exercise its authority to enter judgment on a lesser included offense, it must be clear that “no undue prejudice will result to the accused”).

2007This is because a defect in a complaint is not one of mere form, which is waivable, nor simply one of notice, which may be deemed harmless if a defendant was actually aware of the nature of the accusation against him or her, but, rather, is one of substantive subject matter jurisdiction, “which may not be waived or dispensed with,” see Jendrusch, 58 Haw. at 281 , 567 P.2d at 1244 , and that is per se prejudicial, see [State v.] Motta, 66 Haw. [89,] 91, 657 P.2d [1019,] 1020 [(1983)] (quoting United States v. Thompson, 356 F.2d 216, 226 (2d Cir.1965)).

2007This is because a defect in a complaint is not one of mere form, which is waivable, nor simply one of notice, which may be deemed harmless if a defendant was actually aware of the nature of the accusation against him or her, but, rather, is one of substantive subject matter jurisdiction, "which may not be waived or dispensed with," see Jendrusch, 58 Haw. at 281 , 567 P.2d at 1244 , and that is per se prejudicial, see [ State v. ] Motta, 66 Haw. [89,] 91, 657 P.2d [1019,] 1020 [ (1983) ] (quoting United States v. Thompson, 356 F.2d 216, 226 (2d Cir.1965)).

2007Cf. State v. Sprattling, 99 Hawai'i 312, 320 , 55 P.3d 276, 284 (2002) (noting that if an indictment merely omits a word rather than “an essential element of the offense, the harmless error doctrine is applicable” and a defendant who challenges the omission for the first time on appeal must demonstrate substantial prejudice).

2007Cf. State v. Sprattling, 99 Hawai'i 312, 320 , 55 P.3d 276, 284 (2002) (noting that if an indictment merely omits a word rather than “an essential element of the offense, the harmless error doctrine is applicable” and a defendant who challenges the omission for the first time on appeal must demonstrate substantial prejudice).

2006See English, 164 F.3d at 108 ; Watters, 612 A.2d at 1293 .

2006See English, 164 F.3d at 108 ; Watters, 612 A.2d at 1293 .

2020However, failure to state the amount awarded for each claim makes it impossible for the reviewing court, absent any other indication in the record, to amend the lump sum award when it is decided on appeal that error was committed concerning the consideration of a particular claim by the factfinder, the excessiveness or adequacy of an award, or the evidence necessary to sustain an award. 52 Haw. at 175 , 472 P.2d at 521 . 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** would apply a ‘strict’ Baldwin standard, or a less restrictive approach utilizing a harmless error an

2020However, failure to state the amount awarded for each claim makes it impossible for the reviewing court, absent any other indication in the record, to amend the lump sum award when it is decided on appeal that error was committed concerning the consideration of a particular claim by the factfinder, the excessiveness or adequacy of an award, or the evidence necessary to sustain an award. 52 Haw. at 175 , 472 P.2d at 521 . 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** would apply a ‘strict’ Baldwin standard, or a less restrictive approach utilizing a harmless error an

2026Per State v. McNulty, the ICA explained, new evidence warrants a new trial when “(1) the evidence has been discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been discovered before or at trial through the exercise of due diligence; (3) the evidence is material to the issues and not cumulative or offered solely for purposes of impeachment; and (4) the evidence is of such a nature as would probably change the result of a later trial.” 60 Haw. 259 , 267- 68, 588 P.2d 438, 445 (1978) (citation omitted).

2026Per State v. McNulty, the ICA explained, new evidence warrants a new trial when “(1) the evidence has been discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been discovered before or at trial through the exercise of due diligence; (3) the evidence is material to the issues and not cumulative or offered solely for purposes of impeachment; and (4) the evidence is of such a nature as would probably change the result of a later trial.” 60 Haw. 259 , 267- 68, 588 P.2d 438, 445 (1978) (citation omitted).

2008Consistent with the harmless error doctrine, we have frequently stated that error must be examined in light of the entire proceedings and given effect to which the whole record shows it is entitled." (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Wakabayashi v. Hertz Corp., 66 Haw. 265, 272 , 660 P.2d 1309, 1314 ("Even an erroneous exclusion of relevant evidence does not necessarily call for reversal of the trial court, if no prejudice results.").

2008Consistent with the harmless error doctrine, we have frequently stated that error must be examined in light of the entire proceedings and given effect to which the whole record shows it is entitled." (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Wakabayashi v. Hertz Corp., 66 Haw. 265, 272 , 660 P.2d 1309, 1314 ("Even an erroneous exclusion of relevant evidence does not necessarily call for reversal of the trial court, if no prejudice results.").

2021Id.

2014Absent such proposed instructions, “[i]t is not for us to speculate about what the jury would have done had it been properly instructed, for it is the jury’s role, not that of the appellate courts, to weigh the evidence.” Cabagbag, 127 Hawai'i at 321 , 277 P.3d at 1046 (Acoba, J., dissenting) (citing State v. Kikuta, 125 Hawai'i 78, 89 , 253 P.3d 639, 650 (2011)).

2019See , e.g. , Farrell , 866 F.2d at 1299-1300 ; Webb v. Sloan , 330 F.3d 1158 , 1166 (9th Cir. 2003).

2019See, @.qg., Farrell, 866 F.2d at 1299-1300; Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003).

2008As the Supreme Court explained in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986): The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.

2008As the Supreme Court explained in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986): The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.