Opinion ID: 2514669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The acceptance or rejection of an application for a writ of certiorari is discretionary. HRS § 602-59(a) (Supp.2007). In deciding whether to grant the application, this court considers whether the ICA's decision reflects (1) [g]rave errors of law or of fact[ ] or (2) [o]bvious inconsistencies ... with [decisions] of th[is] court, federal decisions, or [the ICA's] own decision[s] and whether the magnitude of those errors or inconsistencies dictat[es] the need for further appeal. HRS § 602-59(b).
This court generally reviews the circuit court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, unless there can be but one correct answer to the question of admissibility, in which case this court's review is de novo. See State v. Duncan, 101 Hawai`i 269, 273-74, 67 P.3d 768, 772-73 (2003).
The standard of review for a trial court's issuance or refusal of a jury instruction is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading. State v. Balanza, 93 Hawai`i 279, 283, 1 P.3d 281, 285 (2000). [E]rroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial. State v. Sua, 92 Hawai`i 61, 69, 987 P.2d 959, 967 (1999). In other words, [e]rror is not to be viewed in isolation and considered purely in the abstract. State v. Mainaaupo, 117 Hawai`i 235, 247, 178 P.3d 1, 13 (2008) (citations omitted).
In a jury trial, [t]he court ... shall not comment upon the evidence. HRE Rule 1102.
The confrontation clause of article I, section 14 of the Hawai`i Constitution directs that, [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against the accused.... This court has further held that the right of confrontation `affords the accused both the opportunity to challenge the credibility and veracity of the prosecution's witnesses and an occasion for the jury to weigh the demeanor of those witnesses.' State v. Fields, 115 Hawai`i 503, 512, 168 P.3d 955, 964 (2007) (citing State v. Ortiz, 74 Haw. 343, 360, 845 P.2d 547, 555 (1993)).
`In applying the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, the court is required to examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.' State v. Peseti, 101 Hawai`i 172, 178, 65 P.3d 119, 125 (2003) (quoting State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai`i 109, 113-14, 924 P.2d 1215, 1219-20 (1996)) (brackets omitted).
This court reviews the circuit court's decision with respect to a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Lagat, 97 Hawai`i 492, 495, 40 P.3d 894, 897 (2002).