accused asserts defense in Hawaii

2021Abion, 148 Hawai#i at 448, 478 P.3d at 273 (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted).

2021Id. (emphases added) (cleaned up).

2020“Thus, ‘a defendant has the constitutional right to present any and all competent evidence in [their] defense.’” State v. Acker, 133 Hawai‘i 253, 301, 327 P.3d 931, 979 (2014) (citation omitted). “[W]here the accused asserts a defense sanctioned by law to justify or to excuse the criminal conduct charged, and there is some credible evidence to support it, the issue is one of fact that must be submitted to the jury,” and it is reversible error for the court to “reject evidence which, if admitted, would present an essential factual issue for the trier of fact.” State v. Horn, 58 Haw. 252, 255 ,

2020“Thus, ‘a defendant has the constitutional right to present any and all competent evidence in [their] defense.’” 32 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Acker, 133 Hawai‘i at 301, 327 P.3d at 979 (quoting Kassebeer, 118 Hawai‘i at 514, 193 P.3d at 430 ). “[W]here the accused asserts a defense sanctioned by law to justify or to excuse the criminal conduct charged, and there is some credible evidence to support it, the issue is one of fact that must be submitted to the jury.” Horn, 58 Haw. at 255 , 566 P.2d at 1380 .

2010In State v. Brighter, 62 Haw. 25, 30 , 608 P.2d 855, 859 (1980) (per curiam), this court set forth that the claim must be to specific property, stating that “[i]t is vital to the defense, however, that the interest which the accused asserts under a claim of right must be to specific property, HRS [§ ]708—834(l)(b); State v. Martin, [ 15 Or.App. 498 , 516 P.2d 753 (1973) ], and the interest claimed by him must be in complete derogation of the victim’s rights in and to the property which is the subject of the alleged robbery, HRS [§ 3708-834(5).”[ 14 ] (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Brighte

2010In State v. Brighter, 62 Haw. 25, 30 , 608 P.2d 855, 859 (1980) (per curiam), this court set forth that the claim must be to specific property, stating that “[i]t is vital to the defense, however, that the interest which the accused asserts under a claim of right must be to specific property, HRS [§ ]708—834(l)(b); State v. Martin, [ 15 Or.App. 498 , 516 P.2d 753 (1973) ], and the interest claimed by him must be in complete derogation of the victim’s rights in and to the property which is the subject of the alleged robbery, HRS [§ 3708-834(5).”[ 14 ] (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Brighte

2010In State v. Brighter, 62 Haw. 25, 30 , 608 P.2d 855, 859 (1980) (per curiam), this court set forth that the claim must be to specific property, stating that “[i]t is vital to the defense, however, that the interest which the accused asserts under a claim of right must be to specific property, HRS [§ ]708—834(l)(b); State v. Martin, [ 15 Or.App. 498 , 516 P.2d 753 (1973) ], and the interest claimed by him must be in complete derogation of the victim’s rights in and to the property which is the subject of the alleged robbery, HRS [§ 3708-834(5).”[ 14 ] (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Brighte

2010In State v. Brighter, 62 Haw. 25, 30 , 608 P.2d 855, 859 (1980) (per curiam), this court set forth that the claim must be to specific property, stating that “[i]t is vital to the defense, however, that the interest which the accused asserts under a claim of right must be to specific property, HRS [§ ]708—834(l)(b); State v. Martin, [ 15 Or.App. 498 , 516 P.2d 753 (1973) ], and the interest claimed by him must be in complete derogation of the victim’s rights in and to the property which is the subject of the alleged robbery, HRS [§ 3708-834(5).”[ 14 ] (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Brighte

1989However, a defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not without limitation and “may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , _, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2711 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37, 49 (1987) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 309 (1973)).

1989However, a defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not without limitation and “may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , _, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2711 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37, 49 (1987) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 309 (1973)).

1989However, a defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not without limitation and “may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , _, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2711 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37, 49 (1987) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 309 (1973)).

1989However, a defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not without limitation and “may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , _, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2711 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37, 49 (1987) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 309 (1973)).