Opinion ID: 2625903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: A trial court's decision on a challenge for cause of a juror is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai`i 195, 197, 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai`i 358, 373, 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996) (citations omitted). The paramount question in determining whether to excuse for cause a prospective juror is whether the defendant would be afforded a fair and impartial trial based on the law and evidence, with the prospective juror as a member of the jury. State v. Cardus, 86 Hawai`i 426, 438, 949 P.2d 1047, 1059 (App.1997) (citations omitted).
`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,' State v. Kinnane, 79 Hawai`i 46, 49, 897 P.2d 973, 976 (1995).... [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 error may have contributed to conviction.... State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai`i 87, 99-100, 997 P.2d 13, 25-26 (2000) (some citations omitted). State v. Lagat, 97 Hawai`i 492, 495-96, 40 P.3d 894, 898-99 (2002) (some citations omitted) (brackets in original). Nevertheless, the trial court is not required to instruct the jury in the exact words of the applicable statute but to present the jury with an understandable instruction that aids the jury in applying that law to the facts of the case. State v. Apao, 59 Haw. 625, 645, 586 P.2d 250, 263 (1978), subsequent resolution, 66 Haw. 682, 693 P.2d 405 (1984). Erroneous 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. State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai`i 304, 310, 922 P.2d 358, 364 (1996). If that standard is met, however, the fact that a particular instruction or isolated paragraph may be objectionable, as inaccurate or misleading, will not constitute ground for reversal. [State v. ]Pinero, 75 Haw. [282,] 292, 859 P.2d [1369,] 1374 [(1993)]. Whether a jury instruction accurately sets forth the relevant law is a question that this court reviews de novo. Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawai`i 494, 504, 880 P.2d 169, 179 (1994). State v. Vanstory, 91 Hawai`i 33, 43, 979 P.2d 1059, 1069 (1999) (quoting State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai`i 325, 330, 966 P.2d 637, 642 (1998) (some brackets added)). Jury instructions to which no objection has been made at trial will be reviewed only for plain error. State v. Aganon, 97 Hawai`i 299, 302, 36 P.3d 1269, 1272 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), reconsideration denied, 97 Hawai`i 299, 36 P.3d 1269 (2002).
We may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant. State v. Klinge, 92 Hawai`i 577, 584, 994 P.2d 509, 516 (2000) (citations omitted); see also Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b) (1993) (Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.).
Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which requires an examination of the record and a determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction. See Klinge, 92 Hawai`i at 590, 994 P.2d at 522 (citations omitted). Where a defendant fails to object to a prosecutor's statement during closing argument, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the prosecutor's alleged misconduct amounted to plain error. See id. at 592, 994 P.2d at 524. Misconduct of a prosecutor may provide grounds for a new trial if the prosecutor's actions denied the defendant a fair trial. Ganal , 81 Hawai`i at 373, 917 P.2d at 385 (citation omitted).