State v. Uyesugi
Decision Date | 26 December 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 23805.,23805. |
Citation | 100 Haw. 442,60 P.3d 843 |
Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byran UYESUGI, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Deborah L. Kim and Edward K. Harada, Deputy Public Defenders, on the briefs, for defendant-appellant.
Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Brian Toma, Law Clerk on the brief, on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant Byran Uyesugi appeals from the judgment of the first circuit court, the Honorable Marie N. Milks presiding, convicting Uyesugi of murder in the first degree in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-701 (1993)1 and attempted murder in the second degree in violation of HRS §§ 705-500 (1993)2 and 707-701.5 (1993).3 On appeal, Uyesugi argues that: (1) the circuit court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the legal definition of the terms "appreciate" and "wrongfulness"; (2) the circuit court's verdict unanimity instruction violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict because it was prejudicially insufficient and misleading; (3) the circuit court erred when it failed sua sponte to intervene when the prosecution (a) described the victims' families, hobbies, and characteristics, and (b) obtained testimony from the family members of the victims describing personal details about the victim's lives; (4) the circuit court erred when it permitted the prosecution to introduce (a) an exhibit containing a picture of the twenty-four weapons he owned but were not used in the shooting, and (b) expert testimony about the characteristics of the weapons in the absence of an objection from defense counsel; and (5) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We hold that: (1) as a matter of plain error analysis, defense counsel having failed to object to the jury instructions in which the term "appreciate" and "wrongfulness" were not defined, Uyesugi has failed to establish that his substantial rights were violated; (2) the unanimity instructions were not prejudicially insufficient or misleading; (3) the circuit court did not commit plain error when it did not, sua sponte, order the prosecution not to (a) allude to the characteristics of the victims in opening statements or (b) introduce testimony of victims' family members; (4) the circuit court did not commit plain error when, without objection, it allowed the introduction of one picture of the defendant's weapons and permitted the testimony of a weapons expert; and (5) Uyesugi did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel through the pretrial and trial proceedings.
On November 9, 1999, Uyesugi was indicted on one charge of first degree murder for the shooting deaths of seven individuals, seven counts of murder in the second degree, and one count of attempted murder in the second degree. Witnesses testified that Uyesugi was an employee of the Xerox Corporation, and that on November 2, 1999 he arrived at work in time for an 8:00 a.m. "work group" meeting. Two of the seven victims were in the meeting room when witnesses heard a loud explosion, saw the two victims shot, and observed Uyesugi crouched with a gun in his hand. Two other witnesses testified to hearing the loud explosions and discovering the remaining five victims. Uyesugi surrendered without further incident after a standoff with the police lasting several hours.
Jury instruction number 26, originally proposed by the prosecution, provided that:
Defense counsel withdrew their requested instructions on the affirmative defense of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding criminal responsibility on June 1, 2000. The withdrawn instructions did not provide definitions of "appreciate" or "wrongfulness." The circuit court also instructed that "[u]nless otherwise provided, the words used in these instructions shall be given their usual sense and in connection with the context in which they appear."
The circuit court provided unanimity instructions. The prosecution's proposed instruction number 1, regarding first degree murder, was given over the defendant's objection. That instruction provided that Instructions regarding murder in the second degree were given by agreement: "However, if and only if you find the Defendant not guilty in Count I of the offense of Murder in the First Degree, or if you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to this offense, then you must consider whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty in Counts II through and including Count VIII of Murder in the Second Degree." The court's instruction number 17, given by agreement, provided that The court's instruction number 18 was given by agreement; it provided that, Instruction number 29, given by agreement provided that "[i]f and only if you find the Defendant not guilty in Count I of the offense of Murder in the First Degree, or you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to that offense then you may bring in one of the following verdicts[.]" The circuit court instructed that if the defendant "has not proved both of these [lack of penal responsibility elements] by a preponderance of the evidence then you must find that this defense does not apply." At the conclusion of instruction number 29 the court reiterated to the jury that "[y]our verdicts must be unanimous." At no time during deliberations did the jury request clarification of any of the instructions.
During opening statements, the prosecutor referred to the victims and the victims' families. He stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Baker
...the crime, the more care must be exercised by the presiding judge to see that defendant's rights are protected." State v. Uyesugi, 100 Hawai‘i 442, 462, 60 P.3d 843, 863 (2002) (quoting Territory v. Hays, 43 Haw. 58 (Haw. Terr. 1958) ); see also Christopher J. v. Ames, 241 W.Va. 822, 828 S.......
-
Knight v. State
...changing it. Art. III, § 43, Ala. Const. of 1901.4 Such power rests solely in the hands of the Alabama Legislature. See State v. Uyesugi, 100 Haw. 442, 60 P.3d 843 (2002) (court noted that the Hawaii Legislature had amended the definition of insanity because the McNaghten rule was outdated)......
-
State v. Schnabel
...such justification here. Id. (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Naeole, 62 Haw. 563, 570–71, 617 P.2d 820, 826 (1980) ).12 Likewise, in State v. Uyesugi, this court declined to notice plain error where the defendant failed to preserve a potential HRE 403 objection to the admission of eviden......
-
State Of Haw.‘i v. Stenger, 27511.
...that his or her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to request a defense instruction. See State v. Uyesugi, 100 Hawai‘i 442, 464, 60 P.3d 843, 865 (2002) (reviewing a defendant's claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for, among other th......