State v. Eberly
Decision Date | 02 June 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 24750.,24750. |
Citation | 112 P.3d 725,107 Haw. 239 |
Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Petitioner, v. Bardwell EBERLY, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Daniel H. Shimizu, deputy prosecuting attorney, on the application, for plaintiff-appellee-petitioner State of Hawai`i. LEVINSON, DUFFY, and ACOBA, JJ.; and MOON, C.J., dissenting; and NAKAYAMA, J., dissenting.
On April 12, 2005, the plaintiff-appellee-petitioner State of Hawai`i [hereinafter, "the prosecution"], filed an application for a writ of certiorari, requesting that this court review the published decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in State v. Eberly, No. 24750, ___ Hawai`i ___, 116 P.3d 703, 2005 WL 605551 (Haw.App. Mar 15, 2005) [hereinafter, "the ICA's opinion"], (1) vacating the October 12, 2001 judgment of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Michael A. Town presiding, which convicted the defendant-appellant-respondent Bardwell Eberly of and sentenced him for the offenses of (a) possession of a firearm by a person convicted of certain crimes, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 134-7(b) and (h) (Supp.1995)1 (Counts I and II), and (b) possession of ammunition by a person convicted of certain crimes, in violation of HRS §§ 134-7(b) and (h) (Count III), and (2) remanding the present matter to the circuit court for a new trial. On April 18, 2005, we granted the prosecution's application.
The prosecution contends that "the ICA erred in vacating Eberly's firearms convictions as the circuit court did not commit plain error when it did not instruct the jury that the [prosecution] was required to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Eberly's ignorance or mistake of fact defense."
We granted certiorari because the ICA's opinion is "inconsisten[t]," see HRS § 602-59(b) (1993), with State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai`i 195, 58 P.3d 1242 (2002), to the extent that the narrow holding of Locquiao does not, in and of itself, expressly mandate that trial courts specifically instruct juries that the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants, who have adequately raised the non-affirmative defense, were not ignorant or mistaken as to a fact that negatives the state of mind required to establish an element of the offense or offenses with which they are charged. Nevertheless, we now hold, consistently with our jurisprudence regarding other non-affirmative defenses, that trial courts must specifically instruct juries, where the record so warrants, that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not ignorant or mistaken as to a fact that negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the charged offense or offenses. Accordingly, we (1) affirm the ICA's opinion on different grounds, (2) vacate the circuit court's October 12, 2001 judgment, and (3) remand this matter to the circuit court for a new trial.
The following facts, adduced in the circuit court and recited in the ICA's opinion, are undisputed in the prosecution's application:
ICA's opinion, at ___ - ___, 116 P.3d at 705-06, 2005 WL 605551.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moyle v. Y & Y Hyup Shin, Corp.
...We therefore vacate the circuit court's judgment and remand the matter to the circuit court for a new trial. See State v. Eberly, 107 Hawai`i 239, 245, 112 P.3d 725, 731 (2005) (vacating and remanding due to improper jury 2. Instructions regarding liability of an establishment serving alcoh......
-
State Of Haw.‘i v. Stenger
...to instruct the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of negativing defendant's mistake-of-fact defense. See State v. Eberly, 107 Hawai‘i 239, 251, 112 P.3d 725, 737 (2005) (holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that the prosecution bore the burden o......
-
State ‘i v. Kikuta
...has affirmed the use of the plain error standard of review for erroneous jury instructions. Nichols explained that in State v. Eberly, 107 Hawai‘i 239, 112 P.3d 725 (2005), this court observed that “erroneous [jury] instructions may be grounds for reversal despite counsel's failure to objec......
-
State v. Nichols
...use of the HRPP Rule 52(b) plain error standard of review for erroneous jury instructions was recently reaffirmed in State v. Eberly, 107 Hawai`i 239, 112 P.3d 725 (2005), a case decided six months before the ICA's opinion in the instant case. In Eberly, we observed notwithstanding HRPP Rul......