Opinion ID: 2629770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: When jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading....

Text: [E]rroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial. [E]rror is not to be viewed in isolation and considered purely in the abstract. It must be examined in the light of the entire proceedings and given the effect which the whole record shows it to be entitled. In that context, the real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error may have contributed to conviction. If there is such a reasonable possibility in a criminal case, then the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgment of conviction on which it may have been based must be set aside. ... State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai`i 199, 204, 998 P.2d 479, 484 (2000) (citations and internal quotation signals omitted) (brackets in original). State v. Valdivia, 95 Hawai`i 465, 471-72, 24 P.3d 661, 667-68 (2001).
On appeal, a trial court's order consolidating cases for trial under [Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)] Rule 13 shall not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re John Doe, Born on October 26, 1977, 79 Hawai`i 265, 273, 900 P.2d 1332, 1340 (App.1995) (citations omitted). Cf. State v. Renon, 73 Haw. 23, 31, 828 P.2d 1266, 1270 (1992) (We review the [circuit] court's decision to join defendants in a single trial for an abuse of discretion.)
The admissibility of evidence requires different standards of review depending on the particular rule of evidence at issue. State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai`i 229, 246, 925 P.2d 797, 814 (1996). When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard. However, the traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a judgment call on the part of the trial court. Id. at 246-47, 925 P.2d at 814-15 (citations omitted). Prior bad act evidence under Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 404(b) (1993) is admissible when it is 1) relevant and 2) more probative than prejudicial. State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i 172, 183, 907 P.2d 758, 769 (1995) (citations omitted). A trial court's determination that evidence is relevant within the meaning of HRE Rule 401 (1993) is reviewed under the right/wrong standard of review. State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai`i 229, 247, 925 P.2d 797, 815 (1996). However, a trial court's balancing of the probative value of prior bad act evidence against the prejudicial effect of such evidence under HRE Rule 403 (1993) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai`i 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994) (citations omitted). State v. Torres, 85 Hawai`i 417, 421, 945 P.2d 849, 853 (App.1997) (footnotes omitted). We review the circuit court's decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of discretion. See State v. Vliet, 95 Hawai`i 94, 107, 19 P.3d 42, 55 (2001); State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai`i 462, 496, 946 P.2d 32, 66 (1997); State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i 172, 180, 907 P.2d 758, 766 (1995); State v. Montalbo, 73 Haw. 130, 140-41, 828 P.2d 1274, 1281 (1992). [T]he question whether a person is an expert is a question of law. The person either is or is not an expert, and there is only one right answer. However, ... [t]he question of whether a witness qualifies as an expert is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and such determination will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. .... Liberality and flexibility in evaluating qualifications should be the rule; the proposed expert should not be required to satisfy an overly narrow test of his own qualifications. The trial court has wide discretion in determining the competency of a witness as an expert with respect to a particular subject. State v. Cababag, 9 Haw.App. 496, 504, 850 P.2d 716, 720 (1993) (citing Larsen v. State Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 64 Haw. 302, 304, 640 P.2d 286, 288 (1982), and M. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6642 (Interim Ed.1992)).
The law is settled that the scope of cross-examination at trial [is]... within the discretion of the trial court .... The trial court's exercise of its discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination will not be ruled as reversible error when it limits irrelevant and repetitious questions by counsel [and the limitation does] not result in any manifest prejudice to the defendant. State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai`i 383, 399, 894 P.2d 80, 96 (1995) (quoting State v. Young, 8 Haw.App. 145, 151, 795 P.2d 285, 290 (quoting State v. Faulkner, 1 Haw.App. 651, 654-55, 624 P.2d 940, 943-44 (1981)), cert. denied, 71 Haw. 669, 833 P.2d 901 (1990)) (some brackets and ellipses added and some in original).
The trial judge, at a hearing on a motion for new trial, acts as the trier of fact. Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Tex.App.1992). In this jurisdiction, a trial court's FOFs are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. State v. Hutch, 75 Haw. 307, 328, 861 P.2d 11, 22 (1993) (citations omitted). An FOF is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 246, 831 P.2d 924, 930, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992). And [w]here there is substantial evidence, which is credible evidence of sufficient quantity and probative value to justify a reasonable person in reaching conclusions that support the FOFs, the FOFs cannot be set aside. Moreover, an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trial judge. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 116-17, 839 P.2d 10, 28, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai`i 172, 179-80, 873 P.2d 51, 58-59 (1994).
The denial of a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be upset absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai`i 405, 411, 984 P.2d 1231, 1237 (1999) (citing State v. Loa, 83 Hawai`i 335, 349, 926 P.2d 1258, 1272, reconsideration denied, 83 Hawai`i 545, 928 P.2d 39 (1996)).
In reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this court must determine whether the assistance, [w]hen viewed as a whole, was ... provided to the defendant within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases[.] State v. Richie, 88 Hawai`i 19, 39, 960 P.2d 1227, 1247 (1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, [t]his court has also held that the defendant has the burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and must meet the following two-part test: 1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. Id. (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Haw. 419, 439-40, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)). Determining whether a defense is `potentially meritorious' requires an evaluation of the possible, rather than the probable, effect of the defense on the decision maker .... Accordingly, no showing of `actual' prejudice is required to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Dan v. State, 76 Hawai`i 423, 427, 879 P.2d 528, 532 (1994). State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai`i 462, 479-80, 946 P.2d 32, 49-50 (1997) (ellipsis in original). Barnett v. State, 91 Hawai`i 20, 26-27, 979 P.2d 1046, 1052-53 (1999) (brackets and ellipsis points in original).