State v. Motta - 66 Haw. 254, 659 P.2d 745 (1983)

Rule:

The refusal or giving of requested instructions must be interpreted, or considered, in connection with the entirety of the court's charge to the jury.

Facts:

A cashier on duty was robbed at gunpoint by a man who demanded that she give him all the money she had in her cash register. Upon arrival of the police at the scene, the cashier gave a description of the robber. Subsequently, the cashier picked appellant David Kalei Motta’s photograph from a photographic array of about twenty-five to thirty pictures. In a preliminary hearing, the cashier positively identified appellant, and during trial, the cashier confirmed her prior identifications and pointed out the appellant as the person who robbed her. Appellant presented an alibi defense at trial. Appellant testified that he was at a nightclub at the time of the robbery. Appellant called several other witnesses to describe his physical appearance on the date of the robbery and to corroborate his alibi. After considering the evidence presented, the jury found appellant guilty of the offense of robbery in the first degree. On appeal, the appellant contended that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to read his requested alibi instruction in its entirety and in admitting a police artist's composite sketch of the robbery suspect.

Issue:

Should the appellant’s conviction be reversed based on the grounds he raised on appeal? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court held that upon careful review of the charge given to the jury, there was no danger of misapprehension because the trial court read what it considered the pertinent part of appellant's requested alibi instruction. The court found that the instruction given by the trial court sufficiently apprised the jurors that appellant must be acquitted if there was any reasonable doubt about appellant's presence at the scene of the crime after consideration of all the evidence in the case. The court found that the trial court's omission of a specific statement regarding the burden of proof in its alibi instruction did not constitute reversible error. The court held that a composite sketch was hearsay but nevertheless admissible under the hearsay exception for prior identifications if it complied with Haw. R. Evid. 802.1(3). The court held that the trial court properly denied appellant's post-trial motion to dismiss the indictment.