State v. Onishi, 6224
Decision Date | 28 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 6224,6224 |
Citation | 59 Haw. 384,581 P.2d 763 |
Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Ken ONISHI, also known as Eddie Onishi, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An alleged error in an instruction to which no objection was made before the trial court will not be considered on appeal, unless it is shown that the substantial rights of the defendant have been affected.
Rodney Kim, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant.
Allan S. Chock, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and KOBAYASHI, OGATA, MENOR and KIDWELL, JJ.
The defendant was convicted on several counts of promoting harmful or detrimental drugs. From the judgment and sentence of the trial court the defendant appeals.
The only issue which merits our serious consideration is, whether the following instruction was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant:
The defendant argues that the words "induced" or "encouraged" should have been used instead of the word "authorized." The defendant's contention is untenable. The foregoing instruction was in substantial conformity with the statute 1 and was consistent with the evidence presented. Moreover the language of which he complains was drawn from the defendant's own requested instruction. 2 See United States v. Wiggins, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 530 F.2d 1018 (1976). Further, no objection to the foregoing instruction was made at trial. An alleged error in an instruction to which no objection was made before the trial court will not be considered on appeal, unless it is shown that the substantial rights of the defendant have been affected. State v. Iaukea, 56 Haw. 343, 537 P.2d 724 (1975). See also H.R.Cr.P. Rule 52(b) (now H.R.P.P. Rule 52(b)).
Affirmed.
1 HRS § 702-237 sets out the defense of entrapment in the following language:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McNulty
...these circumstances, appellant may not now challenge the propriety of the court's charge. Rule 30(e), HRCrP (1960). See State v. Onishi, 59 Haw. 384, 581 P.2d 763 (1978); State v. Iaukea, 56 Haw. 343, 354-55, 537 P.2d 724, 733 (1975). See also Hankerson v. North Carolina, 423 U.S. 233, 244 ......
-
State v. Casipe
...and (2) it is shown that substantial rights of the defendant may have been affected. State v. Brezee, supra; State v. Onishi, 59 Haw. 384, 581 P.2d 763 (1978); State v. Carson, 1 Haw.App. 214, 617 P.2d 573 (1980). Cf. State v. Corpuz, In State v. Brezee, supra, the defendant contended that ......
-
State v. Martin, 6934
...and determined by this court where defendant's substantial rights may have been affected because of plain error. State v. Onishi, 59 Haw. 384, 581 P.2d 763 (1978); State v. Bunn, supra. Since the protection against double jeopardy is constitutionally guaranteed, we shall address the The dou......
-
State v. Yoo
...was not prejudicial to the defendant and the defendant made no objection, he cannot now raise the question on appeal. State v. Onishi, 59 Haw. 384, 581 P.2d 763 (1978); State v. McNulty, 60 Haw. 259, 588 P.2d 438 "The general rule is that a reviewing court will not consider issues not raise......