INFERENCE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND LACK OF DEFENSE

INFERENCE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND LACK OF DEFENSE: IMPERSONATING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: HRS §§ 710-1016.8, 710-1016.9 A. Inference If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was not a law enforcement officer, and that he/she wore [the uniform or displayed the badge or identification card of a law enforcement officer] [a uniform or displayed a badge or identification card resembling the uniform, badge or identification card of a law enforcement officer] [a badge or identification card that purported to be a law enforcement officer's badge or identification card], you may, but are not required to, infer that the Defendant pretended to be a law enforcement officer. If you do so infer, you must nevertheless consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant pretended to be a law enforcement officer. B. Affirmative Defense It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for Impersonating a Law Enforcement Officer that the Defendant was employed by the State or a subdivision thereof or by the United States as a law enforcement officer at the time of the conduct charged. C. Not a Defense It is not a defense to a prosecution for Impersonating a Law Enforcement Officer that the office the person pretended to hold did not in fact exist. Notes HRS §§ 710-1016.8, 710-1016.9; HRE Rule 306(a)(3). State v. Mitchell, 88 Hawai‘i 216, 965 Hawai‘i 149 (App. 1997); State v. Tabigne, 88 Hawai‘i 296, 966 P.2d 608 (1998). For definition of "affirmative defense", see instruction