Opinion ID: 1356075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Valentine's Challenge Of The Jury Instruction Regarding Constructive And Joint Possession Is Moot.

Text: Valentine argues that the jury instruction regarding constructive and joint possession should not have been given. Specifically, Valentine argues that such an instruction [is] only applicable where more than one party could have access or ownership over an illegal item and therefore all parties would be culpable (emphasis in original). Valentine claims that, inasmuch as Officer Leffler was the rightful owner of the firearm, [i]t would be absurd to say that both Off[icer] Leffler and [Valentine] were therefore in `joint constructive possession' where one of the parties is a police officer with his gun. Inasmuch as Valentine was acquitted of the charged HRS § 134-7(b) offense and, moreover, the jury instruction regarding constructive and joint possession is not relevant with respect to the remanded offense of attempted prohibited possession of a firearm, for which possession of any kind need not be proved, the propriety of the instruction is moot.