Opinion ID: 2633583
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Failure to Give a Relevant Attributes Instruction Was Erroneous.

Text: Because the prosecution's confession of error is not binding upon the appellate court, we must still first determine whether the circuit court erred in failing to give a relevant attributes instruction. State v. Solomon, 107 Hawai`i 117, 126, 111 P.3d 12, 21 (2005). In Valdivia, the defendant was arrested while attempting to flee from police, handcuffed, and taken to the hospital. Valdivia, 95 Hawai`i at 470, 24 P.3d at 666. While seated and awaiting treatment, still handcuffed, and flanked by two police officers, the defendant turned to one officer and said, I'm gonna kill you and your police uniform. Id. at 471, 24 P.3d at 667. The officer testified that this statement worr[ied] him. Id. The defendant was subsequently charged with terroristic threatening in the first degree against a public servant. Id. On appeal after conviction, the defendant argued that the trial court erroneously failed, over his objection, to instruct the jury that [w]here a threat is directed at a police officer, you may consider that police officers are trained to a professional standard of behavior that ordinary citizens might not be expected to equal. Id. at 479, 24 P.3d at 675. This court agreed that the failure to instruct the jury that the threatened person's status and training as a police officer was relevant was reversible error, holding: [I]n order for an utterance to constitute a true threat, it must be objectively susceptible to inducing fear of bodily injury in a reasonable person at whom the threat is directed and who is familiar with the circumstances under which the threat is uttered. . . . That being the case, the particular attributes of the defendant and the subject of the threatening utterance are surely relevant in assessing whether the induced fear of bodily injury, if any, is objectively reasonable. Id. This holding was based on our decision in In re Doe, 76 Hawai`i 85, 869 P.2d 1304 (1994), where we reasoned that in considering whether the offense of harassment has been committed against a police officer, the fact that the object of the [allegedly harassing utterances] is a trained and experienced police officer maintaining a professional standard of restrained behavior is a factor. Id. at 96, 869 P.2d at 1315. As set forth above, the trial court in this case gave the following true threat instruction without objection: A threat does not include any statement which, when taken in context, is not a true threat because it is conditional or made in jest. An alleged true threat is one that is objectively capable of inducing a reasonable fear of bodily injury in the person at whom the threat was directed and who was aware of the circumstances under which the remarks were uttered. True threats must be so unambiguous and have such immediacy that they convincingly express an intention of being carried out. A threat is, on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made, so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution. (Emphasis added.) We agree with the parties that this instruction is defective under Valdivia because it does not make clear to the jury that Nichols' and Krau's particular attributes, including their relative size and weight, Nichols' apparent capacity and inclination to carry out his threat, and Krau's status and training as a police officer, were relevant in determining whether Nichols' alleged threats were objectively capable of inducing a reasonable fear of bodily injury under the circumstances.