§701-114  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 
(1)  Except as otherwise provided in section 701-115, no person may be
convicted of an offense unless the following are proved beyond a reasonable
doubt:



(a) Each element of the offense;



(b) The state of mind required to establish each
element of the offense;



(c) Facts establishing jurisdiction;



(d) Facts establishing venue; and



(e) Facts establishing that the offense was committed
within the time period specified in section 701-108.



(2)  In the absence of the proof required by
subsection (1), the innocence of the defendant is presumed. [L 1972, c 9, pt of
§1; am L 1973, c 136, §2(a)]



 



Cross References



 



  Elements of an offense, see §702-205.



 



COMMENTARY ON §701-114



 



  This section announces the usual burden of proof in criminal
cases; the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  The
matters which must be so proved are spelled out in detail.  They include
elements of the offense, the requisite state of mind, and facts establishing
jurisdiction, venue, and timeliness.



 



SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §701-114



 



  Section 114(2) of the Proposed Draft of the Code had provided
that the "innocence of the defendant is assumed."  The Legislature
found that "the use of the word 'assumed' in this manner is novel and
prefers the term 'presumed' since it has a definite meaning in
jurisprudence."  Conference Committee Report No. 2 (1972).



  Act 136, Session Laws 1973, amended this section by adding
the introductory phrase now contained in subsection (1) ("Except as
otherwise provided in section 701-115, ...") to eliminate the possibility
of confusion in the application of §§701-114 and 701-115.



 



Law Journals and Reviews



 



  Agonizing Over Aganon:  A New Approach to Drafting Jury
Instructions in Criminal Cases.  10 HBJ No. 13, at pg. 73.



 



Case Notes



 



  Appearance in court by defendant did not waive right to
insist that State prove venue.  66 H. 530, 668 P.2d 32.



  State need not establish jurisdiction of trial court by
proving defendant is over 18 years of age.  67 H. 68, 678 P.2d. 1080.



  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt not established where trial
judge found defendant guilty based on substantial credible evidence.  72 H.
296, 815 P.2d 1025.



  Requirements of HRPP rule 18 and article I, §14 of Hawai`i
constitution having been satisfied, venue was proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.  78 H. 185, 891 P.2d 272.



  State tax maps could not be used to establish venue in DUI
prosecution where maps did not represent legislatively authorized schematics of
official district boundaries for non-taxation purposes.  80 H. 291, 909 P.2d
1106.



  Officer's testimony regarding Ewa boundary of Honolulu
district, being probative of "facts establishing venue" under this
section, was relevant and admissible under chapter 626, rule 803(b)(20).  80 H.
297, 909 P.2d 1112.



  Testimony of officer supplemented with tax map information
which court could have taken judicial notice of pursuant to chapter 626, rule
201, constituted substantial evidence supporting "facts establishing
venue" with respect to DUI offense.  80 H. 297, 909 P.2d 1112.



  Where defendant requested court to instruct jury on
time-barred lesser included offense of simple trespass under §708-815,
defendant waived statute of limitations under subsection (1)(e).  87 H. 108,
952 P.2d 865.



  Defendant's right to have all elements of an offense proven
beyond a reasonable doubt was statutorily protected under this section and
constitutionally protected under the Hawaii and federal constitutions; as only
defendant personally could have waived such fundamental right and such right
could not have been waived or stipulated to by defendant's counsel, stipulation
by defendant's counsel of the fact that defendant committed defendant's crime
within two years of a second or prior conviction of abuse for purposes of the
§709-906(7) charge violated defendant's due process rights.  116 H. 3, 169 P.3d
955.



  Failure to instruct jury as to venue and timeliness of
prosecution is error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  5 H. App. 644, 706
P.2d 1321.



  State proved jurisdictional facts beyond a reasonable doubt. 
8 H. App. 497, 810 P.2d 668.



  Failure to instruct jury on state of mind element under
§134-7, as required by subsection (1)(b), was prejudicial and not harmless
error.  78 H. 422 (App.), 895 P.2d 173.



  Judicial notice taken that trial, being held in first
circuit, was held in proper circuit.  78 H. 422 (App.), 895 P.2d 173.