Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dicksongreen2 sentences2009"The trial court should first examine the particular facts and circumstances relating to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, education, mental capacity, background and experience, and his conduct at the time of the alleged waiver." Id. (citations omitted). 1996In State v. Dickson, 4 Haw.App. 614, 619 , 673 P.2d 1036, 1041 (1983), this court set forth a comprehensive set of guidelines which a trial court should follow to ensure that a defendant who elects to proceed pro se at trial has voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his or her right to the assistance of counsel at trial: The trial court should first examine the particular facts and circumstances relating to the defendant, such as the defendant’s age, education, mental capacity, background and experience, and his [or her] conduct at the time of the alleged waiver. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Dicksgreen2 sentences2015“Among the probative factors bearing on the question are the age, education, and mental capacity of the defendant, his background and experience, and his conduct at the time of the alleged waiver.” Id. 2015The district court had knowledge of Phua’s “age, education, and mental capacity ..., his background and experience, and his conduct at the time of the alleged waiver.” Dicks, 57 Haw. at 48 , 549 P.2d at 729-30 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ruggierogreen1 sentence2025See Ruggiero, 114 Hawai‘i at 233-34, 160 P.3d at 709-10 ("Conviction of or 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER imposition of sentence for a 'status' offense, in which one element of the offense is the status of the defendant at the time of the alleged violation, does not require that the conviction continue to be valid at the time of sentencing."); State v. Winham, 144 Hawai‘i 154, 438 P.3d 286 , No. CAAP-17- 0000351, 2019 WL 1487084 , at *5 (App. May 7, 2019) (SDO) ("The legislature was concerned that drivers could defeat a charge of habitually driving under t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lobendahngreen2 sentences2007See Lobendahn, 71 Haw. at 113 , 784 P.2d at 873 , quoted in Veikoso , 102 Hawai`i at 227 n. 5, 74 P.3d at 583 n. 5 ("In Lobendahn we held that, inasmuch as the statute created a `status offense,' the subsequent invalidation of the predicate felony conviction did not affect the validity of the criminal possession charge because the defendant was `a convicted felon at the time he possessed the firearm and ammunition. 2007See Lobendahn, 71 Haw. at 113 , 784 P.2d at 873 , quoted in Veikoso , 102 Hawai`i at 227 n. 5, 74 P.3d at 583 n. 5 ("In Lobendahn we held that, inasmuch as the statute created a `status offense,' the subsequent invalidation of the predicate felony conviction did not affect the validity of the criminal possession charge because the defendant was `a convicted felon at the time he possessed the firearm and ammunition. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Veikosogreen2 sentences2007See Lobendahn, 71 Haw. at 113 , 784 P.2d at 873 , quoted in Veikoso, 102 Hawai'i at 227 n. 5, 74 P.3d at 583 n. 5 (“In Lobendahn we held that, inasmuch as the statute created a ‘status offense,’ the subsequent invalidation of the predicate felony conviction did not affect the validity of the criminal possession charge because the defendant was ‘a convicted felon at the time he possessed the firearm and ammunition. 2007See Lobendahn, 71 Haw. at 113 , 784 P.2d at 873 , quoted in Veikoso , 102 Hawai`i at 227 n. 5, 74 P.3d at 583 n. 5 ("In Lobendahn we held that, inasmuch as the statute created a `status offense,' the subsequent invalidation of the predicate felony conviction did not affect the validity of the criminal possession charge because the defendant was `a convicted felon at the time he possessed the firearm and ammunition. | 1 | 1 |
Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence1987The results of such analysis must agree with the reference sample value within the limits of plus or minus one hundredths percent weight per volume (±0.01% W/V) or such limits set by the director. 3 In Oveson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 574 P.2d 801 (Alaska 1978), the breath testing instrument utilized was the breathalyzer, rather than the intoxilyzer. 4 We note that the Colorado checklist “requires the intoxilyzer operator to perform a simulator solution test prior to each breath test.” Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, Dept. of Revenue, 706 P.2d 5, 6 (Colo. App. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grahamgreen1 sentence1985See State v. Graham, 360 So.2d 853 (La. 1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Shannon
neutral
1 sentence2025See Ruggiero, 114 Hawai‘i at 233-34, 160 P.3d at 709-10 ("Conviction of or 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER imposition of sentence for a 'status' offense, in which one element of the offense is the status of the defendant at the time of the alleged violation, does not require that the conviction continue to be valid at the time of sentencing."); State v. Winham, 144 Hawai‘i 154, 438 P.3d 286 , No. CAAP-17- 0000351, 2019 WL 1487084 , at *5 (App. May 7, 2019) (SDO) ("The legislature was concerned that drivers could defeat a charge of habitually driving under t | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Lowther
green
2 sentences1994(Emphasis added.) In State v. Lowther, 7 Haw.App. 20 , 740 P.2d 1017 (1987), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) specifically stated that, pursuant to HRS § 291-5, “[a]n [ijntoxilyzer breath test is relevant in an HRS § 291-4(a)(1) prosecution.” Id. at 21 n. 2, 740 P.2d at 1018 n. 2. 1994(Emphasis added.) In State v. Lowther, 7 Haw.App. 20 , 740 P.2d 1017 (1987), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) specifically stated that, pursuant to HRS § 291-5, “[a]n [ijntoxilyzer breath test is relevant in an HRS § 291-4(a)(1) prosecution.” Id. at 21 n. 2, 740 P.2d at 1018 n. 2. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Oveson v. Municipality of Anchorage
green
1 sentence1987The results of such analysis must agree with the reference sample value within the limits of plus or minus one hundredths percent weight per volume (±0.01% W/V) or such limits set by the director. 3 In Oveson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 574 P.2d 801 (Alaska 1978), the breath testing instrument utilized was the breathalyzer, rather than the intoxilyzer. 4 We note that the Colorado checklist “requires the intoxilyzer operator to perform a simulator solution test prior to each breath test.” Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, Dept. of Revenue, 706 P.2d 5, 6 (Colo. App. 1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hsu v. United States
green
1 sentence1983The trial court should first examine the particular facts and circumstances relating to the defendant, Hsu v. United States, supra; Faretta v. California, supra; Reponte v. State, supra; State v. Dicks, supra, such as the defendant’s age, education, mental capacity, background and experience, and his conduct at the time of the alleged waiver. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
1 sentence1976Jur.2d § 317 at 346, Johnson v. Zerbst, supra; Carpentier v. Lainson, supra. Both defendants indicated in court that they wished to waive their rights to a lawyer and proceed. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Cooke
green
2 sentences1975State v. Cooke, 270 N.C. 644 , 155 S.E. 2d 165 (1967); State v. Shadding, 17 N.C. 1975State v. Cooke, 270 N.C. 644 , 155 S.E. 2d 165 (1967); State v. Shadding, 17 N.C. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Shadding
green
2 sentences1975State v. Cooke, 270 N.C. 644 , 155 S.E.2d 165 (1967); State v. Shadding, 17 N.C. 1975State v. Cooke, 270 N.C. 644 , 155 S.E. 2d 165 (1967); State v. Shadding, 17 N.C. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.