noticing plain error, and holding that “trial courts must specifically instruct juries, where the record so warrants, that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not ignorant or mistaken as to a fact that negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the charged offense or offenses”
How later courts described this case
- noticing plain error, and holding that “trial courts must specifically instruct juries, where the record so warrants, that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not ignorant or mistaken as to a fact that negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the charged offense or offenses”
- holding "when a defendant asserts a non-affirmative defense and adduces evidence in support thereof, the circuit court must instruct the jury as to the prosecution's burden of proof with respect to negativing the defense"
- holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of negativing defendant's mistake-of-fact defense
- applying the presumption of harmfulness in the context of plain error review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
MOON, C. J.
For the reasons stated by Justice Ramil in his dissenting opinion in State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai'i 195, 209 , 58 P.3d 1242, 1256 (2002) (Ramil, J., dissenting), which I joined, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of this case.