Opinion ID: 2520968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refusal to define terms

Text: Danny also argues that the circuit court's instructions were erroneous because they failed to define key terms. When instructing the jury, the court did not define the term extreme mental or emotional disturbance. During deliberations, the jury sent the court a communication stating that [t]he jurors would like to know the court's definition of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; the court responded by stating, Please refer to the Court's instructions. Danny is again incorrect. When considered as a whole, the court's instructions were not prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading. The Hawai'i Legislature has not defined extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Accordingly, the circuit courts need not define the term when instructing the jury; instead, the jury is to give the phrase its plain meaning. See Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Hawai'i 91, 148, 969 P.2d 1209, 1266 (1998) (The instructions, as they were actually given to the jury, did not include the legal definitions of `defraud' or `deceit.') Accordingly, we presume that the jury applied the commonly understood meaning of those terms (citing HRS § 1-14 (1993) (The words of a law are generally to be understood in their most known and usual signification[.])). See also United States v. Smith, 635 F.2d 716, 720 (8th Cir.1980) (The word `knowledge' as used in the instruction on the elements of the offense is a word of common usage and thus within the ordinary understanding of a juror. The district court was under no obligation to define words within the ordinary understanding of the jury.); State v. Williams, 38 Ohio St.3d 346, 528 N.E.2d 910, 921 n. 14 (1988) (We emphatically remind trial courts that they should limit definitions, where possible, to those definitions provided by the legislature in order to avoid unnecessary confusion and needless appellate challenges.); Roise v. State, 7 S.W.3d 225, 242 (Tex.App.1999) (If a phrase, term, or word is statutorily defined, the trial court should submit the statutory definition to the jury.... Words that are not statutorily defined are to be given their common, ordinary, or usual meaning. (Citations omitted.)). Therefore, the circuit court correctly refused to define extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Cf. State v. Seguritan, 70 Haw. 173, 173-74, 766 P.2d 128, 128-29 (1988)(holding that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of EMED because the circuit court used language not found in the statute).