motion to suppress hearing in Hawaii

12 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 2 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Changgreen haw · 2019 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020Officer Townsend stated that, when he 3 Uchima contended that medical rule-out questions include the following: whether the person has any physical defects or speech impediments, whether the person is taking any medication, and whether the person is under the care of a physician, a dentist, or an optometrist. 4 We recently held in State v. Chang, 144 Hawaiʻi 535, 556, 445 P.3d 116, 137 (2019), that courts may not consolidate a motion to suppress hearing with trial. 2020Overruling State v. Texeira, 62 Haw. 44 , 609 P.2d 131 (1980), we also prospectively held that trial courts could no longer consolidate a motion to suppress hearing with a trial. 144 Hawaiʻi at 546, 445 P.3d at 127 .	1	2
State v. Eastmangreen haw · 1996 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024We "will not pass upon the trial judge's decisions with respect to the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, because this is the province of the trial judge." Kaneaiakala, 145 Hawai#i at 240, 450 P.3d at 770 (quoting State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai#i 131, 139, 913 P.2d 57, 65 (1996)). 3.	1	1
Wilton v. Stategreen haw · 2007 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022"Appellate courts defer to the judge or jury as fact finder unless no substantial evidence existed for their finding because the fact finder is uniquely qualified to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and to weigh the evidence." Wilton v. State, 116 Hawai#i 106, 119, 170 P.3d 357, 370 (2007) (citation omitted).	1	1
State v. Kaleohanogreen haw · 2002 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022In unchallenged COL 17, which is also an FOF, the Circuit Court found: "There were no red markings or any 'No Parking' signs or other signs where the vehicle was parked." At a motion to suppress hearing, "[t]he trial court, as the finder of fact, may draw reasonable and legitimate inferences and deductions from the evidence," and it is the province of the trial court "to assess the credibility of witnesses . . . and it may accept or reject such testimony in whole or in part." State v. Kaleohano, 99 Hawai#i 370, 376, 56 P.3d 138, 144 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).	1	1
State v. Figelgreen haw · 1995 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009Citing to State v. Figel, 80 Hawai`i 47, 50, 904 P.2d 932, 935 (1995), which relates to a conviction for driving after license suspended or revoked for driving under the influence, Stukin claims that it was incumbent on the State to prove, at the motion-to-suppress hearing, specific and articulable facts that he "was observed on a roadway or highway that is subject to the traffic code or [OVUII] statute." Stukin argues that [i]n the instant case, [Officer] Miles testified that he stopped [Stukin's] vehicle because he heard a screech and saw [Stukin's] vehicle stopped behind him.	1	1
State v. Pattersongreen haw · 1977 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See State v. Patterson, 58 Haw. 462, 468 , 571 P.2d 745, 749 (1977). 1996See State v. Patterson, 58 Haw. 462, 468 , 571 P.2d 745, 749 (1977).	1	1
United States v. Richard Norton Sherwin, Dba Marquis Publishing Corporationgreen ca9 · 1976 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 1 sentence 1978United States v. Sherwin, 539 F.2d 1, 6 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc); United States v. Newton, supra. Our analysis of the composite of elements indicates to us that an agency relationship existed between the officer and the informant in carrying out his search of the premises. *537 The most prominent indication of such a relationship is the officer’s admission at the motion to suppress hearing that he actively recruited the informant.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Uddipa green hawapp · 1982 2 sentences 2010State v. Uddipa, 3 Haw.App. 415 , 651 P.2d 507 (1982); 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 678 (1982). 2010State v. Uddipa, 3 Haw.App. 415 , 651 P.2d 507 (1982); 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 678 (1982).	2	1987–2010
State v. Texeira green haw · 1980 2 sentences 2020Overruling State v. Texeira, 62 Haw. 44 , 609 P.2d 131 (1980), we also prospectively held that trial courts could no longer consolidate a motion to suppress hearing with a trial. 144 Hawaiʻi at 546, 445 P.3d at 127 . 2020Overruling State v. Texeira, 62 Haw. 44 , 609 P.2d 131 (1980), we also prospectively held that trial courts could no longer consolidate a motion to suppress hearing with a trial. 144 Hawaiʻi at 546, 445 P.3d at 127 .	1	2020–2020
State v. Richie green haw · 1998 2 sentences 2003Defendant bears the burden of establishing an ineffective assistance of counsel by demonstrating: “1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Richie, 88 Hawai'i at 39 , 960 P.2d at 1247 . 2003Defendant bears the burden of establishing an ineffective assistance of counsel by demonstrating: “1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Richie, 88 Hawai'i at 39 , 960 P.2d at 1247 .	1	2003–2003
State v. Nakachi green hawapp · 1987 2 sentences 1998State v. Nakachi, 7 Haw.App. 28 , 33 n. 7, 742 P.2d 388 , 392 n. 7 (1987). 1998State v. Nakachi, 7 Haw.App. 28 , 33 n. 7, 742 P.2d 388 , 392 n. 7 (1987).	1	1998–1998
State v. Lesley green utah · 1983 1 sentence 1987See 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 678 (1982); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 193 (1982); contra, State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79 (Utah 1983). 7 When reviewing this issue, we consider all the evidence received at the motion to suppress hearing and at the trial.	1	1987–1987
State v. Goudy green haw · 1971 2 sentences 1980Cir. 1972); Gains v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333 , 568 P.2d 1207 (1977); State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497 , 479 P.2d 800 (1971). 3 See Beck v. Ohio, supra. 4 State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593 , 499 P.2d 657 (1972) is cited in Appellant’s Reply Brief, apparently for the proposition that our review should be limited to the evidence contained in the record of the motion to suppress hearing only. 1980Cir. 1972); Gains v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333 , 568 P.2d 1207 (1977); State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497 , 479 P.2d 800 (1971). 3 See Beck v. Ohio, supra. 4 State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593 , 499 P.2d 657 (1972) is cited in Appellant’s Reply Brief, apparently for the proposition that our review should be limited to the evidence contained in the record of the motion to suppress hearing only.	1	1980–1980
State v. Barnes green haw · 1977 2 sentences 1980Cir. 1972); Gains v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333 , 568 P.2d 1207 (1977); State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497 , 479 P.2d 800 (1971). 3 See Beck v. Ohio, supra. 4 State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593 , 499 P.2d 657 (1972) is cited in Appellant’s Reply Brief, apparently for the proposition that our review should be limited to the evidence contained in the record of the motion to suppress hearing only. 1980Cir. 1972); Gains v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333 , 568 P.2d 1207 (1977); State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497 , 479 P.2d 800 (1971). 3 See Beck v. Ohio, supra. 4 State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593 , 499 P.2d 657 (1972) is cited in Appellant’s Reply Brief, apparently for the proposition that our review should be limited to the evidence contained in the record of the motion to suppress hearing only.	1	1980–1980
State v. Onishi green haw · 1972 2 sentences 1980Cir. 1972); Gains v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333 , 568 P.2d 1207 (1977); State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497 , 479 P.2d 800 (1971). 3 See Beck v. Ohio, supra. 4 State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593 , 499 P.2d 657 (1972) is cited in Appellant’s Reply Brief, apparently for the proposition that our review should be limited to the evidence contained in the record of the motion to suppress hearing only. 1980Cir. 1972); Gains v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333 , 568 P.2d 1207 (1977); State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497 , 479 P.2d 800 (1971). 3 See Beck v. Ohio, supra. 4 State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593 , 499 P.2d 657 (1972) is cited in Appellant’s Reply Brief, apparently for the proposition that our review should be limited to the evidence contained in the record of the motion to suppress hearing only.	1	1980–1980
Larry D. Gaines v. Walter E. Craven green ca9 · 1971 1 sentence 1980Cir. 1972); Gains v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333 , 568 P.2d 1207 (1977); State v. Goudy, 52 Haw. 497 , 479 P.2d 800 (1971). 3 See Beck v. Ohio, supra. 4 State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593 , 499 P.2d 657 (1972) is cited in Appellant’s Reply Brief, apparently for the proposition that our review should be limited to the evidence contained in the record of the motion to suppress hearing only.	1	1980–1980
United States v. Tommie Lee Newton and Willie Stokes green ca7 · 1975 1 sentence 1978United States v. Sherwin, 539 F.2d 1, 6 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc); United States v. Newton, supra. Our analysis of the composite of elements indicates to us that an agency relationship existed between the officer and the informant in carrying out his search of the premises. *537 The most prominent indication of such a relationship is the officer’s admission at the motion to suppress hearing that he actively recruited the informant.	1	1978–1978
United States v. Marc Paul Fannon, United States of America v. Paul Howard Gumerlock green ca9 · 1977 1 sentence 1978This situation is analogous to that which faced the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Fannon, 556 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1977).	1	1978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 701-109 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 423 (1972–2026) GA 154 (1973–2026) LA 113 (1973–2024) OH 96 (1971–2026) IL 58 (1971–2026) MA 43 (1979–2026) TN 40 (1978–2025) IN 33 (1975–2025) FL 25 (1960–2017) OR 19 (1975–2025) MO 19 (1976–2019) CA 18 (1990–2026) HI 12 (1978–2024) NJ 11 (1976–2019) VA 10 (2008–2024) NC 8 (2019–2025) ID 7 (1986–2025) OK 6 (1971–2012) IA 6 (2014–2026) UT 6 (1990–2026) NM 6 (1980–2023) NE 6 (1994–2023) WY 5 (1995–2025) AZ 4 (1977–2016) ND 4 (2001–2020) RI 4 (1987–2024) ME 3 (2009–2022) DE 3 (2020–2026) WI 3 (1984–2015) KS 3 (1995–2017) PA 3 (2021–2026) CT 3 (2019–2025) AL 2 (1977–1987) AR 2 (2005–2015) WA 2 (2010–2010) MS 2 (2000–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check