Opinion ID: 2625903
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Text: Iuli further contends that the jury instructions were insufficient because they did not instruct the jury as to venue, jurisdiction, and timeliness of prosecution. HRS § 701-114 (1993) [4] requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the offense, the state of mind required to establish each element of the offense, and facts establishing jurisdiction, venue, and timeliness. However, where uncontradicted and undisputed evidence of timely prosecution, jurisdiction, and proper venue is contained in the record, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Correa, 5 Haw.App. 644, 650, 706 P.2d 1321, 1325, cert. denied, 68 Haw. 692 (1985). In the present case, the record demonstrates that the prosecution adduced evidence establishing jurisdiction, venue, and timeliness and that the evidence was undisputed. We, therefore, hold that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on these matters was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.