State v. Adviento., 319 P.3d 1131

Background

Adviento indicted for second-degree murder in connection with Erlinda Adviento’s death on Oct 28, 2007.
State sought to introduce a 2004 phone incident and Adviento’s prior assault conviction to rebut an EMED defense if raised.
Trial court deferred ruling on the conviction’s admissibility pending EMED, later allowing admission only if EMED was raised; with EMED issues unresolved, the conviction would be admitted only in rebuttal of EMED.
Adviento testified about marital strain and alleged infidelity; EMED defense was discussed but ultimately waived.
Defense opened and closed with a waiver of EMED; jury later instructed on murder, reckless manslaughter, and justifiable use of force; EMED instruction was withdrawn; verdict: guilty of murder in the second degree.
Hawai‘i ICA affirmed; Supreme Court vacated and remanded to require EMED instruction when raised by the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court must instruct on EMED when raised by the evidence	Adviento argues EMED instruction was warranted; waiver should not bar.	State contends EMED instruction not required without defense demand or on strategic grounds.	Yes; trial court must instruct if evidence supports EMED even without a request.
Whether Adviento could validly waive the EMED instruction	Waiver should not bar a legally required instruction.	Waiver was valid as a voluntary decision after proper colloquy.	No; waiver cannot defeat a mandatory EMED instruction raised by the evidence.
Admissibility of Adviento’s prior assault conviction to rebut EMED	Conviction admissible under 404(b) to rebut EMED based on relationship issue.	Admission was improper if it depended on EMED being raised; trial rulings ambiguous.	Remand warranted to assess whether admission affected EMED ruling; convictions may be admissible if EMED raised.
Impact of EMED waiver on trial strategy and rights to present a defense	Waiver aligns with strategic trial decisions and does not violate rights.	Waiver undermines trial court’s duty to instruct and defendant’s right to present defense.	Mandatory EMED instruction must be given irrespective of waiver to protect truth-seeking and fair trial.
Whether Taylor or related precedent governs unrequested defense instructions	Taylor mandates plain-error review for unrequested EMED instruction.	Taylor should permit waiver analysis similar to credible-evidence standard.	Taylor governs; unrequested defense instructions require credible evidence unless waived by defendant.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai‘i 405, 16 P.3d 246 (2001) (duty to instruct on included/offenses; premised on ultimate court responsibility to instruct)
State v. Flores, 131 Hawai‘i 43, 314 P.3d 120 (2013) (reaffirmed trial court’s duty to instruct; context of EMED/lesser offenses)
State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai‘i 195, 58 P.3d 1242 (2002) (duty to instruct on included offenses; standard for instruction)
State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai‘i 304, 922 P.2d 358 (1996) (general instruction duties; context for trial court’s role)
State v. Aganon, 97 Hawai‘i 299, 36 P.3d 1269 (2001) (EMED is an evidentiary-mitigating defense; duty to instruct when evidence shows EMED)
State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai‘i 325, 966 P.2d 637 (1998) (EMED instruction when there is any evidence of EMED; subjective/objective test)
State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. 509, 778 P.2d 704 (1989) (admission of other acts evidence factors for admissibility)
State v. Kikuta, 125 Hawai‘i 78, 253 P.3d 639 (2011) (mutual affray as a mitigating defense; instruction when any evidence exists)
State v. Dumlao, 6 Haw.App. 173, 715 P.2d 822 (1986) (EMED defense characterization as mitigating, not complete defense)
State v. Taylor, 130 Hawai‘i 196, 307 P.3d 1142 (2013) (unrequested defense instructions; Taylor standard for credible evidence vs waiver)
State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai‘i 172, 907 P.2d 758 (1995) (admissibility of prior bad acts to rebut EMED)
State v. Haili, 103 Hawai‘i 89, 79 P.3d 1263 (2003) (prior bad acts admitted to rebut EMED)