Opinion ID: 2518434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Eberly's Appeal by the ICA

Text: On December 10, 2001, Eberly filed a timely notice of appeal, raising the following points of error: (1) [that] the circuit court provided an insufficient jury instruction on the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact[;] (2) [that] Eberly received ineffective assistance of counsel[;] and (3) [that] the circuit court violated Eberly's right to a fair trial by allowing the jurors to ask improper questions of witnesses. ICA's opinion, at ___, 116 P.3d at 705, 2005 WL 605551. The ICA, to which we assigned the appeal in the first instance, see Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-5(8) (1993) and Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 31(a) (2005), noted that Eberly further assert[ed] that paragraph four of Hawai`i Pattern Jury InstructionsCriminal (HAWJIC) 7.13 should have been included in the instructions to the jury and his substantial rights were harmed by its absence. Paragraph four of HAWJIC 7.13 provides: The burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was not ignorant or mistaken as to a fact that negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the offense. If the prosecution fails to meet its burden, then you must find the Defendant not guilty. ICA's opinion, at ___ - ___, 116 P.3d at 707-08, 2005 WL 605551. The prosecution responded: (1) that Eberly's substantial rights were not affected by the [circuit] court's instructions to the jury regarding the defense of ignorance; (2) that Eberly was provided with the effective assistance of counsel; and (3) that the [circuit] court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the juror question to [the witness].... Eberly replied: (1) that a criminal jury must expressly and separately determine whether the State has satisfied its burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact; (2) that sufficient evidence of trial counsel's ineffective assistance has been presented; and (3) that the trial court's failure to carefully weigh the potential detriment to [Eberly] prior to directing ... [the witness] to answer [the juror question] was an abuse of discretion.