State v. Niskromoni, 5017
| Decision Date | 27 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5017,5017 |
| Citation | 53 Haw. 122,488 P.2d 329 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander NISKROMONI, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
HRS § 748-3, which imposes upon the accused the burden of showing the nonexistence of malice of aforethought, is constitutionally invalid.
James Blanchfield, Deputy Public Defender, Honolulu (Brook Hart, Public Defender, and James G. Jung, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs), for defendant-appellant.
Particia K. Park, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu , for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and MARUMOTO, ABE, LEVINSON and KOBAYASHI, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder after a jury trial in the first circuit court. On this appeal, he urges that the circuit court erred in giving to the jury over his counsel's objection, an instruction on malice aforethought which repeated the language of HRS § 748-3. The point raised by defendant is well taken. State v. Cuevas, 53 Haw. 110, 488 P.2d 322 (1971). The judgment appealed from is reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Santiago
...it to other cases coming before the court on direct review. See State v. Irvin, 53 Haw. 119, 488 P.2d 327 (1971), and State v. Niskromoni, 53 Haw. 122, 488 P.2d 329 (1971). IV. The defendant finally argues that the trial judge erred in refusing to give an instruction on self-defense. In Sta......
- State v. Kaahanui, 11866