319 P.3d 1105
Haw.2014Background
- Basham and Aliikea Basham were charged with first-degree assault in Hawaii for a 2007 incident injuring Bloom.
- Trial occurred June 2011; jury heard witness testimony from Bloom, Chavez, Aliikea, and police.
- Jury instruction on accomplice liability used an empty definition for intent to promote or facilitate.
- Prosecutor orally defined promote and facilitate during closing, altering the court’s instruction.
- Defense objected; trial court overruled; closing arguments included statements so-definitions were used.
- ICA affirmed; Hawaii Supreme Court vacated conviction and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did prosecutor's oral definitions of promote and facilitate misstate the law? | Basham argued definitions deviated from Hawaii law and not approved by court. | State contends definitions aided jury understanding; no prejudice beyond harmless error. | Vacate and remand for new trial due to misdefinition of accomplice liability. |
| Did prosecutor lie about Basham to police and attack credibility of witnesses? | Statements implied Basham lied; breached fair-trial protections and credibility standards. | Inferences from record are permissible; not plain error given context. | Remand addresses broader misconduct; plain-error analysis follow later; but concern remains. |
| Was the evidence sufficent to sustain accomplice liability for first-degree assault? | Evidence shows Basham held Bloom and aided Driver; sufficient for accomplice liability. | Evidence weak on intent to promote or facilitate; possible lack of mens rea. | Evidence viewed in light for substantial support; however new trial required due to legal error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Espiritu, 117 Haw. 127 (Haw. 2008) (misstatements of law require curative instruction to avoid reversible error)
- State v. Walsh, 125 Haw. 271 (Haw. 2011) (generic tailoring arguments infringing defendant's rights are improper)
- State v. Melear, 63 Haw. 488 (Haw. 1981) (trial court must correct improper prosecutorial comments; closing argument limits)
- State v. Rogan, 91 Haw. 405 (Haw. 1999) (prosecutor must avoid unfair advantage; duty to seek justice)
- State v. Yip, 92 Haw. 98 (Haw. App. 1999) (no oral changes to jury instructions; HRPP Rule 30(e) guidance)
- State v. Mattson, 122 Haw. 312 (Haw. 2010) (closing arguments must not undermine defendant's right to testify; generic tailoring)