Opinion ID: 2623270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harmless And Plain Error Within The Context Of Jury Instructions

Text: 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.... [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). Inasmuch as the ultimate responsibility properly to instruct the jury lies with the [trial] court, if trial or appellate counsel fail to raise an objection to an erroneous jury instruction as to which there is a reasonable possibility of contribution to the defendant's conviction and which, consequently, cannot be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, then the instruction, by its very nature, has affected the defendant's substantial rightsto wit, his or her constitutional rights to a trial by an impartial jury and to due process of law and, therefore, may be recognized as plain error. Id. at 205, 998 P.2d at 485 (citations omitted); see State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai`i 87, 101, 997 P.2d 13-27 (2000) (We may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant.) (Quoting State v. Cullen, 86 Hawai`i 1, 8, 946 P.2d 955, 962 (1997)); 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.); see also State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai`i 405, 414-16, 16 P.3d 246, 255-57 (2001) (distinguishing plain from harmless error in the context of jury instructions regarding included offenses).