Bryant concluded that “[t]he State ha[d] the burden of proof to show that the amount of 0.012 grams of a substance con-taming an unknown amount of cocaine[] would have a discernable effect on the human body.” However, insofar as the defendant advances a motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds, it is the defendant, and not the prosecution, who bears the burden of proof on the issue. In other words, as this court’s de minimis cases attest, the defendant must establish that his or her conduct neither caused nor threatened to cause the harm or evil that the statute, under which he or she is charged, seeks to prevent. See, e.g., State v. Hironaka, 99 Hawai'i 198, 53 P.3d 806 (2002); State v. Carmichael, 99 Hawai'i 75, 53 P.3d 214, 219 (2002); Balanza, 93 Hawai'i at 283-85, 1 P.3d at 285-87 (<HOLDING>); State v. Akina, 73 Haw. 75, 77-80, 828 P.2d
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that trial courts limited findings were insufficient to allow determination of whether trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony