Opinion ID: 1200133
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extreme mental or emotional disturbance defense

Text: Janto argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing to present an EMED defense pursuant to HRS § 707-702(2) (1993). This section states that: In a prosecution for murder in the first and second degrees it is a defense, which reduces the offense to manslaughter, that the defendant was, at the time he caused the death of the other person, under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation. The reasonableness of the explanation shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be. At a bench conference prior to trial, the prosecutor asked Janto's attorney if he planned to present an EMED defense. Janto's attorney responded, I don't propose that at this time, your honor. However, I reserve the right to ask for it in light of evidence but at this point in time, no. Janto did not request an EMED instruction and none was given by the trial court. In support of his argument that an EMED defense was warranted, Janto argues that [e]nough evidence had been presented ... to believe that Janto was a chronic drug user who, at the time of the commission of the offense, had not slept for several days and was in a drugged state of mind. Although evidence was presented of Janto's drug use and sleeplessness, it is a huge leap to construe, from that information, that he was under the influence of extreme mental and emotional disturbance. The record does not support an EMED defense and Janto's trial attorney was not ineffective for failing to pursue it.