Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals summary disposition order affirms the defendant's conviction for terroristic threatening in the first degree following a jury trial. The court addressed claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and challenged jury instructions regarding the defense of property justification under Hawaii Revised Statutes. After analyzing the record, the court found no improper conduct by the prosecutor and determined the jury instructions accurately reflected the applicable law on recklessness and justification defenses. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and probation sentence was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Did prosecutorial misconduct warrant vacating the conviction?
- Were the jury instructions on terroristic threatening and HRS § 703‑310(1) erroneous?
Holdings
- The court held that the deputy prosecuting attorney's arguments did not constitute misconduct requiring vacatur, and the conviction stands.
- The court held that the jury instructions were not erroneous; they correctly reflected the statutory language and did not prejudice the defendant.
Key quotations
“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.”
Factual background
Dennis David Muralles Juanta shot a shotgun at his pregnant stepdaughter, Tanea Teixeira‑Vierra, in an RV, claiming defense of property. He was convicted of terroristic threatening in the first degree.
Procedural history
Juanta was convicted of first‑degree terroristic threatening after a jury trial. He appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and erroneous jury instructions.