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

Heading: Jury instruction on Robbery in the Second Degree based upon a threat of the imminent use of force

Text: Iuli contends that there was no rational basis to give a jury instruction on robbery in the second degree under HRS § 708-841(1)(b), based upon a threat of the imminent use of force against the person or anyone who [was] present, because there was no evidence presented at trial of a threat against Shimaura. A threat, within the context of the robbery statutes, is a communicated intent to inflict harm ... [that] may be proven and often must be proven by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Halemanu, 3 Haw.App. 300, 305, 650 P.2d 587, 592 (1982) (citations omitted). In the present case, there is ample evidence in the record and reasonable inferences therefrom that would support the theory that Iuli threatened the imminent use of force against Shimaura. Iuli demanded Shimaura's money and car and, after Shimaura refused, Iuli said he would break Shimaura's window if he didn't roll it down. Iuli went back to his car, retrieved a sharp pointed instrument and tried to break the driver's side window. Shimaura testified that, because he felt threatened and fearful, he reversed his car, striking Iuli's vehicle, in an attempt to leave the scene. In light of the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court erred or plainly erred in instructing the jury on robbery in the second degree based upon a threat of the imminent use of force against the person.