INFERENCE: PROMOTING CHILD ABUSE

INFERENCE: PROMOTING CHILD ABUSE IN THE FIRST DEGREE -- PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL: HRS § 707-750(3) If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant [produced] [directed] [participated in the preparation of] pornographic material which [employed] [used] [contained] a minor [engaging] [assisting others to engage] in sexual conduct, you may, but are not required to, infer that the Defendant engaged in such conduct with knowledge of the character and content of the material [produced] [directed] [participated in]. 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 engaged in such conduct with knowledge of the character and content of the material [produced] [directed] [participated in]. * * * If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who was [employed] [used] [contained] in the pornographic material was, at that time, a minor, you may, but are not required to, infer that the Defendant knew the person was a minor. 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 knew the person was a minor. Notes HRS §§ 707-750(3), 702-206(2); HRS Rule 306(a)(3). State v. Mitchell, 88 Hawai‘i 216, 965 P.2d 149 (App. 1998); State v. Tabigne , 88 Hawai‘i 296, 966 P.2d 608 (1998). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: