Opinion ID: 1182812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury on the lot width definition contained in the code.

Text: Appellant argues that the first paragraph of the instruction prejudicially restricted the definition of lot width to that found in the Code, and that the court should have instructed the jury that an administrative interpretation of an ambiguous statute is to be afforded great weight. As we have stated above, the record does not support appellant's contention that the Code definition of lot width was ambiguous. Hence, there was no error in the court's refusal to instruct the jury as to weight to be given to Mr. Moriguchi's administrative reading of the measurement of lot width. Furthermore, the record shows that appellant did not submit a written memorandum to the court stating his request for this proposed point of law. Appellant cannot now complain. Van Poole v. Nippu Jiji Co., 34 Haw. 354, 362 (1937).