State v. Pulawa (1980)
green
· 108 citation events
across 4 courts.
Showing the 21 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198020032026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Paul Kay Coronel v. William Oku (1994)
However, the defendant has the burden of showing that the hearsay "clearly infringe[d] upon the jury's decision-making function." State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 218 , 614 P.2d 373, 378 (Haw.1980).
green
State v. Kutzen (1980)
State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 219, 614 P.2d 373, 379 (1980); State v. Huihui, 62 Haw. 142, 145, 612 P.2d 115, 117 (1980).
green
State v. Higa (2012)
See State v. Chong, 86 Hawai'i 290, 298 , 949 P.2d 130, 138 (App.1997); see also State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 218 , 614 P.2d 373, 378 (1980) (“an indictment should only be quashed on the clearest and plainest grounds”).
“an indictment should only be quashed on the clearest and plainest grounds”
green
State v. Taylor (2011)
It is well established that a defendant has a "substantial constitutional right to a fair and impartial grand jury proceedingt[,]" State v. Joao, 53 Haw. 226, 228-30 , 491 P.2d 1089, 1091-92 (1971), and "due process of law[,] as guaranteed by ... [a]rticle I, [s]ections 4[ [4] ] and 8[ [5] ] to the Hawai'i Constitution[,]" State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 211 , 614 P.2d 373, 375 (1980).
green
State v. Sua (2010)
Id. at 217 , 614 P.2d at 378 (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green
State v. McElroy (2004)
C.The Standard of Review Applicable to the Erroneous Admission of Evidence of Prior Crimes “The standard of review applied to the erroneous admission of evidence of prior crimes is whether ‘the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Kutzen, 1 Haw.App. 406, 414 , 620 P.2d 258, 263 (1980) (quoting State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 220 , 614 P.2d 373, 379 (1980)).
green
State v. Borge, Jr. (2022)
State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 218 , 614 P.2d 373, 378 (1980).
green
State v. Arroyo (2022)
At the same time, "[w]e are mindful that dismissal of an indictment is required only in flagrant cases in which the grand jury has been overreached or deceived in some significant way." State v. Wong, 97 Hawai#i 512, 526, 40 P.3d 914, 928 (2002) (citing Mendonca, 68 Haw. at 283 , 711 P.2d at 734 ; State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980)).
green
State v. Hinesley (2021)
State v. Wong, 97 Hawai#i 512, 526, 40 P.3d 914, 928 (2002) (citing Mendonca, 68 Haw. at 283 , 711 P.2d at 734 ; State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980)).
green
State v. Silver (2010)
See id. at 253-54 , 589 P.2d at 525 ; State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P. 2d 373, 377 (1980).
green
State v. Van Alderwerelt (2005)
Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morr…
green
State v. Wong (2002)
State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215-216 , 614 P.2d 373, 377-378 (1980).
green
State v. Chong (1997)
Id. at 211-13, 217-18 , 614 P.2d at 375-76, 378 .
green
Hood v. State (1988)
Prosecutorial misconduct "infringes due process when a reasonable likelihood exists that it may induce action other than that which the grand jurors in their uninfluenced judgment would take," State v. Paulsen, 286 N.W.2d 157, 160 (Iowa 1979), or the misconduct usurps the grand jury role, State v. Pulawa, 62 Hawaii 209 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).
green
State v. Mendonca (1985)
In State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980), we quoted from United States v. Samango, 607 F.2d 877, 882 (9th Cir. 1979): “Dismissal of an indictment is required only in flagrant cases in which the grand jury has been overreached or deceived in some significant way, as where perjured testimony has knowingly been presented [footnote and citation of cases omitted].” Mendonca claims State abused its prosecutorial discretion by indicting him under HRS § 708-84…
green
State v. Melear (1981)
State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 219 , 614 P.2d 373, 379 (1980).
green
State v. Griffin (2011)
See Pulawa, 62 Haw. at 214 , 614 P.2d at 376 ; Apao, 59 Haw. at 637, 586 P.2d at 259 (quoting Scotland, 58 Haw. at 476-77, 572 P.2d at 499) (“We hold that in proceedings determining the validity of an indictment, the state does not have the burden of proving that the alleged illegal or improper testimony is not prejudicial; it is the duty of the defendant to come forward and present a case proving prejudice.”); State v. Melear, 63 Haw. 488, 492 , 630 P.2d 619, 623 (1981) (“A…
green
State v. Souza. (2018)
See State v. Pulawa , 62 Haw. 209 , 220, 614 P.2d 373 , 379-80 (1980) (analyzing whether a prosecutor's reference to photographs of the defendant as "mug photographs," which suggested that the defendant had been convicted of a previous crime, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Huihui , 62 Haw. 142 , 145, 612 P.2d 115 , 117 (1980) (analyzing whether the prosecutor's use of the words "police mug photographs" in a question, which implied that the defendant had a…
analyzing whether a prosecutor's reference to photographs of the defendant as "mug photographs," which suggested that the defendant had been convicted of a previous crime, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
green
State v. Estrada (1987)
See State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209 , 614 P.2d 373 (1980).
green
State v. Miyazaki (1982)
Seealso, State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209 , 614 P.2d 373 (1980); State v. Huihui, 62 Haw. 142 , 612 P.2d 115 (1980).