Opinion ID: 2520968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instructions regarding order of findings

Text: Danny first argues that the jury instructions were erroneous because the court misstated the order in which the jury should have considered the issues. The court instructed jurors to examine the EMED issue if, and only if, they found beyond a reasonable doubt that Danny committed the offense of second degree murder. Danny argues that the prosecution's disproving of the EMED defense must come firstthat the prosecution must prove that Danny was not under the influence of an EMED before the jury could conclude that Danny was guilty of second degree murder. Danny, however, cites no legal authority for this proposition. In Perez, this court upheld an instruction virtually identical to that at issue here. [15] 90 Hawai'i at 68, 76, 976 P.2d at 382, 390. Pursuant to these instructions, the prosecution still has the burden of proving every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubtregardless of the order in which the jury is instructed to examine the issues. Danny has failed to demonstrate any prejudice.