reasonable possibility error in Hawaii

2012In that context, the real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to conviction.” State v. Duncan, 101 Hawai'i 269, 278 , 67 P.3d 768, 777 (2003) (quoting State v. Heard, 64 Haw. 193, 194 , 638 P.2d 307, 308 (1981)).

2012In that context, the real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to conviction.” State v. Duncan, 101 Hawai'i 269, 278 , 67 P.3d 768, 777 (2003) (quoting State v. Heard, 64 Haw. 193, 194 , 638 P.2d 307, 308 (1981)).

2025Therefore, the Circuit Court did not plainly err in failing to enter a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution was untimely. (2) Bekkum also argues that the Circuit Court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State must prove timeliness beyond a reasonable doubt. "[O]nce instructional error is demonstrated, we will vacate, without regard to whether timely objection is made, if there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction, i.e., that the erroneous jury instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State

2025Just because a unanimity instruction was not required does not mean it was error to give one. "[T]he real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to conviction." State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai#i 327, 334, 141 P.3d 974, 981 (2006).

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))).

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).

2021“Misconduct requires vacating a conviction when, in light of these factors, ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’” State v. Underwood, 142 Hawai‘i 317, 325, 418 P.3d 658, 666 (2018) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai‘i 405, 412, 984 P.2d 1231, 1238 (1999)).

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)).

2018If there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, "the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the conviction must be set aside." Id. (citing State v. Gano , 92 Hawai'i 161 , 176, 988 P.2d 1153 , 1168 (1999) ).

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).

2021Stanley, 148 Hawai#i at 500-01, 479 P.3d at 118 -19 (quoting State 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER v. Holbron, 80 Hawai#i 27, 32, 904 P.2d 912, 917 , reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai#i 187, 907 P.2d 773 (1995)); see also State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai#i 327, 337, 141 P.3d 974, 984 (2006) ("[O]nce instructional error is demonstrated, we will vacate, without regard to whether timely objection was made, if there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction[.]").

2017“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. Balisbisana, 83 Hawaii 109, 114, 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (1996) (quoting State v. Holbron, 80 Hawaii 27, 32, 904 P.2d 912, 917 (1995)).

2003Prosecutorial 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 that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i 109, 114 , 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (1996) (quoting State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 32 , 904 P.2d 912, 917 , reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai'i 187 , 907 P.2d 773 (1995)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai

2003Prosecutorial 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 that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i 109, 114 , 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (1996) (quoting State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 32 , 904 P.2d 912, 917 , reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai'i 187 , 907 P.2d 773 (1995)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai

2003Prosecutorial 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 that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i 109, 114 , 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (1996) (quoting State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 32 , 904 P.2d 912, 917 , reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai'i 187 , 907 P.2d 773 (1995)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai

2003Prosecutorial 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 that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i 109, 114 , 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (1996) (quoting State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 32 , 904 P.2d 912, 917 , reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai'i 187 , 907 P.2d 773 (1995)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai

2021"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." Id. at 39-40, 422 P.3d at 39 -40 (quoting State v. Clark, 83 Hawai#i 289, 304, 926 P.2d 194, 209 (1996) (quoting State v. McGriff, 76 Hawai#i 148, 158, 871 P.2d 782, 792 (1994))).

2020“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 Hawaiʻi 148, 158, 871 P.2d 782, 792 (1994).

2020State v. Cullen, 86 Hawai#i 1, 8, 946 P.2d 955, 962 (1997) (citations and brackets omitted; block quote format altered) (quoting State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai#i 1, 11-12, 928 P.2d 843 , 853- 53 (1996)) .

2006State v. Cullen, 86 Hawai'i 1, 8 , 946 P.2d 955, 962 (1997) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted; block quote format changed).

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)).

2021There is “a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Gallagher, 146 Hawai‘i at 481, 463 P.3d at 1138 (quoting State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai‘i 339, 368, 219 P.3d 1126, 1155 (2009)).

2021State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai#i 327, 334, 141 P.3d 974, 981 (2006) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Gonsalves, 108 Hawai#i 289, 292-93, 119 P.3d 597, 600-01 (2005)) (citations omitted). "[E]rroneous jury instructions may be grounds for reversal despite counsel's failure to object at trial because it is ultimately the trial court that is responsible for ensuring that the jury is properly instructed." State v. Kikuta, 125 Hawai#i 78, 95, 253 P.3d 639, 656 (2011) (citing Nichols, 111 Hawai#i at 335, 141 P.3d at 982 ) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). "[O]nce instructional error i

2011"In order to determine whether a defendant's substantial rights have been affected[,j the court must determine 'whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to conviction.’ ” State v. Murray, 116 Hawai'i 3 , 14 n. 9, 169 P.3d 955 , 966 n. 9 (2007) (quoting State v. Gonsalves, 108 Hawai'i 289, 293 , 119 P.3d 597, 601 (2005)). .

2017An improper statement by the prosecutor in closing argument warrants a new trial if “there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Tuua, 125 Hawai'i 10, 16 , 250 P.3d 273, 279 (2011) (quoting State v. Hauge, 103 Hawai'i 38, 47 , 79 P.3d 131, 140 (2003)).

2017An improper statement by the prosecutor in closing argument warrants a new trial if “there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Tuua, 125 Hawai'i 10, 16 , 250 P.3d 273, 279 (2011) (quoting State v. Hauge, 103 Hawai'i 38, 47 , 79 P.3d 131, 140 (2003)).

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

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

2017An improper statement by the prosecutor in closing argument warrants a new trial if “there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Tuua, 125 Hawai'i 10, 16 , 250 P.3d 273, 279 (2011) (quoting State v. Hauge, 103 Hawai'i 38, 47 , 79 P.3d 131, 140 (2003)).

2017An improper statement by the prosecutor in closing argument warrants a new trial if “there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Tuua, 125 Hawai'i 10, 16 , 250 P.3d 273, 279 (2011) (quoting State v. Hauge, 103 Hawai'i 38, 47 , 79 P.3d 131, 140 (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)).

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)).

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)).

2021State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai#i 327, 334, 141 P.3d 974, 981 (2006) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Gonsalves, 108 Hawai#i 289, 292-93, 119 P.3d 597, 600-01 (2005)) (citations omitted). "[E]rroneous jury instructions may be grounds for reversal despite counsel's failure to object at trial because it is ultimately the trial court that is responsible for ensuring that the jury is properly instructed." State v. Kikuta, 125 Hawai#i 78, 95, 253 P.3d 639, 656 (2011) (citing Nichols, 111 Hawai#i at 335, 141 P.3d at 982 ) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). "[O]nce instructional error i

2021In State v. Kikuta, 125 Hawai#i 78, 253 P.3d 639 (2011), the Hawai#i Supreme Court stated with regard to plain error review of erroneous jury instructions that: once instructional error is demonstrated, this court will vacate the judgment of the court, without regard to whether timely objection was made, if there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction, i.e., that the erroneous jury instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2014See id. (even assuming the State’s evidence strongly indicated that defendant was not acting under extreme mental or emotional disturbance, there was at least a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction).

2014See id. (even assuming the State’s evidence strongly indicated that defendant was not acting under extreme mental or emotional disturbance, there was at least a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction).

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))).

2014State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai#i 1, 11, 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted); see also State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai#i 327, 337, 141 P.3d 974, 984 (2006) (“[O]nce instructional error is demonstrated, we will vacate, without regard to whether timely objection was made, if there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction, i.e., that the erroneous jury instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

2014State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai#i 1, 11, 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted); see also State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai#i 327, 337, 141 P.3d 974, 984 (2006) (“[O]nce instructional error is demonstrated, we will vacate, without regard to whether timely objection was made, if there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction, i.e., that the erroneous jury instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”). -29- *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** III.

2021Prosecutorial 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 that the error 19 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Pacheco, 96 Hawai‘i 83, 93, 26 P.3d 572, 582 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2011An improper comment warrants a new trial if “there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” See Hauge, 103 Hawai'i at 47 , 79 P.3d at 140 (internal quotation marks and block quote formatting omitted) (quoting State v. Pacheco, 96 Hawai'i 83, 93 , 26 P.3d 572, 582 (2001)). 1.

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)).

2020The violation of Williams’ constitutional due process right to present a complete defense was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there is “a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Kassebeer, 118 Hawaiʻi 493, 505, 193 P.3d 409, 421 (2008) (quoting State v. Peseti, 101 Hawaiʻi 172, 178, 65 P.3d 119, 125 (2003)).

2018The violation requires this court "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. Kassebeer , 118 Hawai'i 493 , 505, 193 P.3d 409 , 421 (2008) (citation omitted).