of “semiautomatic firearm.” 6 . HRS § 134-1 defines "semiautomatic” as “the mode of operation by which a firearm uses the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to extract a fired cartridge and chamber a fresh cartridge with each single pull of a trigger.” 7 . Vanstory does not challenge the accomplice liability language of the State’s indictment. We recognize that, for the purpose of enhanced sentencing, accomplice liability cannot support a finding of possession if the defendant did not actually possess the firearm. See Garringer, 80 Hawai'i at 333-334, 909 P.2d at 1148-49 (evidence showed that only the other robbery defendant possessed the firearm and that Garringer never actually possessed the firearm); State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai'i 462, 488-89, 946 P.2d 32, 58-59 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The instant case, however, is factually
holding that general verdicts failed to reveal whether defendant was convicted on accomplice liability theory and that evidence supported accomplice liability theory holding that under the accomplice liability doctrine a nontriggerman accomplice may be convicted of double murder a capital offense under  13a540a10 alacode 1975 only if he had the particularized intent that both victims be killed holding full restitution theory satisfies comcast when plaintiffs theory of liability is that the products are entirely ineffective holding that in order to convict a defendant of firstdegree murder on a theory of accomplice liability proof of his own premeditation is required holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case