While Antonio was the actual perpetrator of the robbery, all the defendants were charged as principals pursuant to the provisions of R.L.H. 1955, ยงยง 252-1 and 252-4. See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 266, 365 P.2d 460, 470. No challenge has been made to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction but we think a resume of the facts will facilitate consideration of the errors assigned, particularly appellant's fifth specification of error.
No error is assigned with reference to the petit jury. The legal issue raised in this case anent the constitution of the grand jury and the alleged irregular manner of its selection by the jury commission is parallel to that involved in the case of State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 365 P.2d 460. However, in the instant case the State squarely raises the issue as to the applicability of the provisions of R.L.H. 1955, ยง 221-24, and advances the argument that defendant had failed, in a timely manner, to challenge the grand jury which indicted her. The statute in question specifically provides: "Before the grand jury is sworn, the prosecuting officer, or any person held to answer a charge for a criminal offense may challenge the panel, or an individual juror for cause to be assigned to the court.
Pursuant to Hawaiโi Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 24(c), it is within the trial courtโs discretion to "replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties." See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961) ("The rule is universally recognized that the matter of excusing trial jurors lies in the discretion of the trial judge."). Pasene asked the circuit court to excuse Juror No. 1, arguing that the jurorโs interaction with Officer Le demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to follow the circuit courtโs instructions.
Consistent with this view, we note that, generally, the circuit courts are vested with considerable discretion in the matter of excusing persons from jury service. See State v. Crisostomo, 94 Haw. 282, 287, 12 P.3d 873, 878 (2000) (citing State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961)). Absent an abuse of that discretion, the judge's decision will not be disturbed. Crisostomo, 94 Hawaii at 287, 12 P.3d at 878.
A trial court's determination to excuse a juror is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961). This court has also stated, however, that "[u]nless it patently appears that such discretion has been abused and that the defendant has not been given a fair trial resulting from the abuse, an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion."
Territory v. Blackman, 32 Haw. 460, 464; State v. Yoshida, 45 Haw. 50, 361 P.2d 1032. See also Territory v. Ebarra, 39 Haw. 488, 491; Territory v. Bollianday, 39 Haw. 590; State v. Carvelo, 45 Haw. 16, 361 P.2d 45; State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 365 P.2d 460, relating to persons present who are deemed principals under R.L.H. 1955, ยง 252-1. Since the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury, we find without merit the specifications of error asserting that a judgment of acquittal should have been ordered entered.
We review a trial court's decision regarding whether to excuse a juror for abuse of discretion. See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961). We conclude under the circumstances presented that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pasene's request to excuse the juror.