Opinion
24500
February 27, 2003.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (Cr. No. 01-1-0388)
On the briefs:
Jennifer D. K. Yamashiro, Deputy Public Defender for defendant-appellant.
Bryan K. Sano, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu for plaintiff-appellee.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Nathaniel Turro (Turro) appeals from the July 24, 2001 Judgment, entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (the circuit court), Judge Marie N. Milks presiding, convicting and sentencing Turro for Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 712-1242(1)(c) (1993).
Hawai`i Revised Statutes § 712-1242 (1993) states, in relevant part:
Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly:
. . . .
(c) Distributes any dangerous drug in any amount.
Turro claims that the circuit court erred by "giving an accomplice liability [jury] instruction that was prejudicially insufficient, incomplete and misleading" because the instruction allowed the jury to convict Turro as an accomplice to the buyer of the dangerous drug, a police officer, "thereby denying [Turro] his right to a fair trial[.]"
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having duly considered the case law and statutes relevant to the arguments advanced by the parties, we disagree with Turro.
"When jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading[.]" State v. Valentine, 93 Haw. 199, 204, 998 P.2d 479, 484 (2000) (internal quotations signals omitted). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the accomplice liability instruction given by the circuit court, when read and considered with the other instructions given by the circuit court, was not "prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading[.]"
Accordingly, we affirm the July 24, 2001 Judgment.