 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Yi1/20/2004
86-6.").
Id. at 405 n. 6, 31 P.3d 915, 918 n. 6 (emphases added). Therefore, in instructing the jury on the offense of Violation of a TRO, the family
court did not err in equating personal service of a TRO to knowledge of a TRO.
3. That [Yi] engaged in conduct which he knew was prohibited by the [TRO]; and
4. That [Yi] engaged in said conduct intentionally or knowingly.
A person acts intentionally with respect to his [or her] conduct when it is his [or her] conscious object to engage in such conduct.
A person acts intentionally with respect to attendant circumstances when he [or she] is aware of the existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist.
A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his [or her] conduct when it is his [or her] conscious object to cause such a result.
A person acts knowingly with respect to his [or her] conduct, when he [or she] is aware that his [or her] conduct is of that nature.
A person acts knowingly with respect to attendant circumstances when he [or she] is aware that such circumstances exist.
A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that it is practically certain that his [or her] conduct will cause such a result.
(Footnote added.)
Yi contends on appeal that the family court plainly erred in: (1) listing the requisite state of mind as a material element; (2) failing to list the "conduct" element (i.e., "[a]ny voluntary act prohibited by the TRO") separately from the "result" element (i.e ., "[t]he violation of the TRO, as an intentional or knowing result of the conduct"); and (3) failing to require the jury to find that the state of mind applied to each element of the offense. Yi alleges that the family court should have instructed the jury as follows:
(1) That on or about June 14th, 2001, in the City and County of Hawaii, [Yi] intentionally or knowingly engaged in conduct prohibited by the [TRO] [conduct element];
(2) [Yi] acted intentionally or knowingly that his conduct would result in a violation of the [TRO] [result element]; and
(3) [Yi] acted intentionally or knowingly that the [TRO] issued by a judge of the family court was in effect [attendant circumstances element].
(Some bracketed material in original.)
Since Yi failed to object to the jury instruction at trial, we apply the plain-error standard of review to evaluate whether the family court's jury instruction seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings to serve the ends of justice and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i at 330, 966 P.2d at 642.
Based on our review of the record of the entire proceeding below, we conclude that the challenged instructions given by the family court were not erroneous. The family court's instructions as to the second and third material elements of the Violation-of-TRO offense, in combination with the family court's other instructions, adequately informed the jury that the prosecution was required to prove that Yi knew of the TRO and knew that his conduct would violate the TRO. The family court's instruction as to material element No. 4 correctly instructed the jury that Yi must have "intentionally or knowingly" engaged in the conduct that violated the TRO.
***9 Although Yi argues on appeal that "the [family] court should have listed the conduct element and the result element separately and required that the state of mind applied to each element[,]" the jury instructions that Yi claims in his opening brief should have been given materially differ from the family court's jury instructions only in that Yi's instructions proposed that the State prove that Yi knew that the order was "issued by a judge of the family court[.]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|