State v. Paris.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

RECKTENWALD, C.J.,

In which NAKAYAMA, J., Joins.

I concur with the Majority’s holding that the jury instruction was erroneous and misleading insofar as it stated that Defendant Eugene Paris Jr. “may be deemed to be in custody” when released on furlough. I would hold that Paris is entitled to a new trial on this basis. Respectfully, I dissent from the Majority’s conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. Based on the testimony presented at Paris’s trial, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction of escape in the second degree under…