Opinion ID: 2520968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Perez instructions regarding self-control

Text: Danny asks this court to overrule Perez, a unanimous opinion of this court issued less than five years ago. We decline to do so. In Perez, we analyzed HRS § 707-702(2) (1993) [16] and applicable case law and concluded that [i]t is insufficient for a criminal defendant merely to allege that he or she was experiencing emotional distress at the time of the charged offense. Perez, 90 Hawai'i at 74, 976 P.2d at 388. See also State v. Matias, 74 Haw. 197, 206, 840 P.2d 374, 378 (1992) (Based on the foregoing clear authority, [the defendant] is manifestly mistaken in arguing that the question of self-control on the part of the killer is not relevant to the issue of whether a murder should be mitigated to manslaughter under HRS § 707-702(2).). We held that the key distinction was between the intentional or knowing character of the defendant's conduct, on the one hand, and the controllability of the defendant's conduct, on the other. Perez, 90 Hawai'i at 74, 976 P.2d at 388. Self-control is therefore a significant, even determining, factor in deciding whether the killer was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance such that his conduct would fall under HRS § 707-702(2). Matias, 74 Haw. at 204, 840 P.2d at 378. As a result, the circuit court's instructions were not erroneous.