Help Free
Kevin Metcalfe!

" §703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) ..., the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful-force by the other person on the present occasion. (2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious-bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible-sodomy. "

House Bill §703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of .... Previous Hawaii case law required that the defendant's belief be reasonable. ... §703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. (2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy. (3) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action. Visit - http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.HTM - for full text.

State v. Padilla ... 703-304 and 703-305 defenses of use of force in self-protection and for the protection of others. ... 703-304 Use of force in self-protection. ... FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI`I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT ANTHONY PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAMURA, J. Defendant-Appellant Robert Anthony Padilla (Padilla) appeals from the Judgment filed on March 16, 2005, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. (1) Padilla was indicted on the following offenses: Count 1 -- first degree reckless endangering for intentionally firing a semi-automatic firearm in a manner which recklessly placed Preston Baltazar (Baltazar) in danger of death or serious bodily injury; Count 2 -- first degree reckless endangering for intentionally firing a semi-automatic firearm in a manner which recklessly placed Sterling Mahelona (Mahelona) in danger of death or serious bodily injury; Count 3 -- felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition; Count 4 -- place to keep a loaded pistol or revolver; and Count 5 -- promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree for possessing one-eighth ounce or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. After a jury trial, Padilla was found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, the felon-in-possession and place-to-keep counts, (2) and was acquitted of the other counts. The HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305 defenses would only justify Padilla's possession of the gun that was simultaneous with his use of force. For example, assume that Padilla's acquisition of the gun (by taking it from Mahelona) and Padilla's firing the shots were justified by the immediate need to protect himself and Dubey under the HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305 defenses. (8) If the jury found that Padilla continued to actually or constructively possess the gun in his truck after he fired the shots and drove away from Tripp's yard, the HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305 defenses could not be used to justify such continued possession. Unlike the HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305 defenses, the choice of evils defense set forth in HRS § 703-302 is not limited to justifying the use of force but applies to "conduct," a term that encompasses both the use of force and the act of possession. HRS § 703-302 provides in relevant part: (1) Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid an imminent harm or evil to the actor or to another is justifiable provided that: (a) The harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged[.] (9) The circuit court's choice of evils instruction tracked the language of HRS § 703-302. Under the evidence presented in Padilla's case, the choice of evils defense fully encompassed the HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305 defenses of use of force in self-protection and for the protection of others. Any use of force by Padilla that would have been justified under the HRS § 703-304 and 703-305 defenses was covered by the choice of evils defense. The choice of evils defense under HRS § 703-302 does not speak in terms of protecting "against the use of unlawful force by the other person . . . ." HRS § 703-304. The language of HRS § 703-302, however, permits conduct "necessary to avoid an imminent harm or evil to the actor or to another" and thus is broad enough to authorize actions to protect against the use of unlawful force. The HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305 defenses authorize the defendant to act once he or she reasonably believes that the use of force is immediately necessary for self-protection or to protect others. The choice of evils defense under HRS § 703-302 authorizes the defendant to act if the defendant reasonably believes that his or her conduct is necessary to avoid an imminent harm or evil and if the harm or evil sought to be avoided is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law being broken by the defendant's conduct. In the context of Padilla's justification defense, the differences between the choice of evils defense and the HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305 defenses are immaterial. According to Padilla, he took the gun away from Mahelona and possessed the gun in order to prevent Mahelona and Baltazar from killing or seriously injuring Padilla and Dubey. Under Padilla's theory of defense, the harm sought to be avoided by his possession of the gun was clearly greater than the harm sought to be prevented by the laws defining the felon-in-possession and place-to-keep offenses. Accordingly, Padilla suffered no prejudice from the circuit court's refusal to give instructions based on HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305. Padilla's theory of defense was fully and adequately covered by the choice of evils instruction which the circuit court gave as to Counts 3 and 4. Under the circumstances of Padilla's case, there is no reasonable possibility that the jury, which rejected Padilla's choice of evils defense, might have embraced defenses based on HRS §§ 703-304 and 703-305. Visit - http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2007/ica27300.htm - for full text.

Hawaii Legal News: Botched Evidence and ... 13 May 2009 ... Self defense is not an affirmative one so the State must "disprove the ... See HRS § 703-304. According to the ICA, the fact that Kekona did not intend to ... use of for... Botched Evidence and Interpretation of the Self-Defense Statute Leads to Reversal of Murder Conviction State v. Kekona (ICA May 11, 2009) Background. Kekona was indicted for, among other things, attempted murder in the 2d degree against Ah Loo. Before trial, the State filed a motion in limine that would prohibit any evidence that Ah Loo physically abused Kekona's girlfriend, Tammy Antonio, before the shooting. The State argued that the evidence was irrelevant and that Kekona failed to provide adequate notice pursuant to HRE Rule 404(b). The motion was granted to show Ah Loo's motive for ramming Antonio's car. At the trial, the State presented evidence showing that when the police arrived at the scene--a parking lot in Waimalu--Antonio was frantic and told the police that Ah Loo was ramming her car and that she shot at him. ... Evidence of the Victim's Character was Admissible to show that he was the Initial Aggressor. Relevant evidence is any evidence that has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." HRE Rule 401. Furthermore, evidence "of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused" is admissible. ... Self-Defense Claims do not Require the Underlying Criminal Intent. There was no question that Kekona's use of the gun was deadly force. HRS § 703-300. But Kekona raised self defense. The State argued that because Kekona used deadly force, he must first have the intent to kill before he can rely on the self-defense claim. According to the ICA, that argument was "a bit circular and confusing, and incorrect." Self defense is not an affirmative one so the State must "disprove the facts that have been introduced or . . . prove facts" negating the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Van Dyke, 101 Hawai'i 377, 386, 69 P.3d 88, 97 (2003). The ICA held that there were three crucial issues for the jury to determine: (1) whether the victim used "unlawful force"; (2) whether the defendant believed that the use of deadly force was "immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force"; and (3) whether the defendant reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to protect himself or herself against death or serious bodily injury. See HRS § 703-304. According to the ICA, the fact that Kekona did not intend to kill had nothing to do with the applicability of the self-defense claim. Applying the Self-Defense Statute. According to the ICA, the application of the statute did not depend on the underlying offense. As the ICA explained, the burden still remains on the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force--in this case deadly force--was not justified. HRS § 703-304 can apply to a number of different offenses. The ICA stuck to the language of the statute and did not require an additional element of proof--that the actor must first have the requisite intent for the underlying offense. Visit - http://hawaiiopinions.blogspot.com/2009/05/botched-evidence-and-interpretation-of.html - for full text.

NO. 24316 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF A... HRS § 703-304 states in relevant part: §703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (2) ... Hawaii Revised. Statutes § 703-305(1) (1993) sets forth the defense: ... NO. 24316 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK T. TANELE, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CR. NO. 00-1-2375) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Burns, C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Mark T. Tanele (Tanele) appeals from the Judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) on May 30, 2001. Following a jury trial,1 Tanele was convicted of Assault in the Third Degree in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-712(1)(a) (1993). On appeal, Tanele contends the circuit court plainly erred when it (1) communicated to the jury that the justification of self-defense did not extend to others, (2) refused Tanele's request to instruct the jury on defense of others, and (3) instructed the jury to rely on the instructions previously given. Tanele's points of error are duplicative, so we review the court's refusal to give an instruction on defense of others. ... Tanele contends there was evidence in the record meriting a defense of others instruction. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 703-305(1) (1993) sets forth the defense: §703-305 Use of force for the protection of other persons. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when: (a) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and (b) The actor believes that the actor's intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person. The justification of defense of others is an extension of the defense of self-protection under HRS § 703-304 (1993)2 and must be viewed in its context. Visit - http://www.state.hi.us/jud/ica24316sdo.pdf - for full text.

Self Defense Laws: Hawaii 27 Aug 2008 ... Reference: Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 13A Criminal Code This section contain excerpts of ... §703-304 Use of force in self-protection. ... Wednesday, August 27, 2008 Hawaii Reference: Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 13A Criminal Code This section contain excerpts of this states revised statutes as they pertain to self defense laws. Defense Laws §703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. (2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy. Visit - http://legalselfdefense.blogspot.com/2008/08/hawaii.html - for full text.