in this situation is circumstantial evidence of the likelihood of his being the aggressor and of the absence of provocation on the part of the defendant.” It was thus not necessary for [the defendant] to have laid a foundation as to what he knew of the deceased’s criminal record. It was sufficient that there have been a factual issue as to who was the aggressor. Such an issue, if not apparent at the outset of the trial when [the defendant] made clear that he intended to rely on a self-defense theory, certainly became manifest during trial when the conflicting testimony of the experts and witnesses to the shooting was presented. We realize that it resides within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether there exists sufficient good reason for ev , 586 (App.2001) (<HOLDING>); State v. Maddox, 116 Hawai'i 445, 458, 173
holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon holding that when the factual issue is as between the defendant and the other person who was the aggressor the defendant may introduce evidence of the other persons violent or aggressive character holding that where an issue is the identity of the initial aggressor it is irrelevant whether the defendant was aware of his adversarys reputation holding evidence insufficient for conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances when the drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other persons on the premises holding the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it may find the defendant guilty of conspiracy if the jury found the defendant agreed with at least one other person where the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with a single named individual and the evidence tended to show the defendant may have conspired with a number of persons not just the named coconspirator to commit an unlawful act