Opinion ID: 1356075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The circuit court's jury instruction regarding the included offense of attempted prohibited possession of a firearm

Text: The prosecution requested that the jury be instructed on the offense of attempted prohibited possession of a firearm as an included offense of the offense charged in Count II, pursuant to HRS § 134-7(b). The circuit court, modifying the prosecution's proposed jury instruction, instructed the jury as follows over Valentine's objection: . . . If and only if you find the Defendant not guilty of Prohibited Possession of a Firearm, or you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to this offense, then you must determine whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty of the included offense of Attempted Prohibited Possession of a Firearm. A person commits the offense of Attempted Prohibited Possession of a Firearm if having been previously convicted of committing a felony he attempts to intentionally or knowingly own, possess or control any firearm by intentionally engaging in conduct which under the circumstances as he believed them to be constituted a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the commission of the crime of Prohibited Possession of a Firearm. There are three material elements of this offense, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These three elements are, one, that prior to March 22, 1997, the Defendant, Justin Valentine, was convicted of committing a felony, and two, that on or about March 22, 1997, in County of Maui, State of Hawaii the Defendant did attempt to intentionally or knowingly own, possess or control a firearm, and three, that Defendant did so by intentionally engaging in conduct which under the circumstances as he believed them to be constituted a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the commission of the crime of Prohibited Possession of a Firearm. Conduct shall not be considered a substantial step unless it is strongly corroborative of the Defendant's intent to commit Prohibited Possession of a Firearm. Valentine's objection at trial was that the instruction permitted a non-unanimous verdict, inasmuch as the instruction did not specify the conduct or the facts which the jury must find in order to convict, and that the evidence adduced at trial potentially established three distinct acts  (1) grabbing onto Officer Leffler's belt, (2) touching the firearm, or (3) holding onto the firearm's handle  each of which could constitute the substantial step in an attempt to possess the firearm.