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.
10 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lavoygreen2 sentences2021Likewise, the Court of Appeals of Massachusetts held that “a defendant’s agreement to waive a probation revocation hearing – such as by stipulating to violations – must be knowing and 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** voluntary and that such waiver can be assessed under the totality of the circumstances[.]” Commonwealth v. Sayyid, 17 N.E.3d 469, 470 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014); see also State v. Lavoy, 614 A.2d 1077, 1079 (N.J. 2021Likewise, the Court of Appeals of Massachusetts held that “a defendant’s agreement to waive a probation revocation hearing – such as by stipulating to violations – must be knowing and 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** voluntary and that such waiver can be assessed under the totality of the circumstances[.]” Commonwealth v. Sayyid, 17 N.E.3d 469, 470 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014); see also State v. Lavoy, 614 A.2d 1077, 1079 (N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Hersch v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (“The requirement that the court personally address the defendant before accepting a guilty plea [to a probation violation] is designed to assure that the defendant understand the charges, that a factual basis for the plea exists and that the plea is voluntary.”); Hersch v. State, 562 A.2d 1254, 1256-57 (Md. 1989) (recognizing that “[a] probation revocation proceeding can, and often does, result in immediate deprivation of liberty,” and that “certain fundamental rights [ ] can be waived only where the record affirmatively discloses a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent 2021Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (“The requirement that the court personally address the defendant before accepting a guilty plea [to a probation violation] is designed to assure that the defendant understand the charges, that a factual basis for the plea exists and that the plea is voluntary.”); Hersch v. State, 562 A.2d 1254, 1256-57 (Md. 1989) (recognizing that “[a] probation revocation proceeding can, and often does, result in immediate deprivation of liberty,” and that “certain fundamental rights [ ] can be waived only where the record affirmatively discloses a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent | 2 | 2 |
State v. Villiarimo.green1 sentence2019State v. Villiarimo, 132 Hawai#i 209, 219, 320 P.3d 874, 884 (2014) (“[A] revocation proceeding is akin to the initial sentencing hearing.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Durhamgreen2 sentences2014HRS § 706-625(2) (“The prosecuting attorney, the defendant’s probation officer, and the defendant may appear in the hearing to oppose or support the application, and may submit evidence for the court’s consideration.” (emphasis added)); see also Durham, 125 Hawai'i at 123 , 254 P.3d at 434 (holding in the context of a probation revocation hearing that “ ‘[i]n any system which vests discretion in the sentencing authority, it is necessary that the authority have sufficient and accurate information so that it may rationally exercise its discretion.’ ” (quoting State v. Lau, 73 Haw. 259, 262 , 831 2014HRS § 706-625(2) (“The prosecuting attorney, the defendant’s probation officer, and the defendant may appear in 26 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** the hearing to oppose or support the application, and may submit evidence for the court’s consideration.” (emphasis added)); see also Durham, 125 Hawai#i at 123, 254 P.3d at 434 (holding in the context of a probation revocation hearing that “‘[i]n any system which vests discretion in the sentencing authority, it is necessary that the authority have sufficient and accurate information so that it may rationally exe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Laugreen2 sentences2014HRS § 706-625(2) (“The prosecuting attorney, the defendant’s probation officer, and the defendant may appear in 26 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** the hearing to oppose or support the application, and may submit evidence for the court’s consideration.” (emphasis added)); see also Durham, 125 Hawai#i at 123, 254 P.3d at 434 (holding in the context of a probation revocation hearing that “‘[i]n any system which vests discretion in the sentencing authority, it is necessary that the authority have sufficient and accurate information so that it may rationally exe 2014HRS § 706-625(2) (“The prosecuting attorney, the defendant’s probation officer, and the defendant may appear in 26 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** the hearing to oppose or support the application, and may submit evidence for the court’s consideration.” (emphasis added)); see also Durham, 125 Hawai#i at 123, 254 P.3d at 434 (holding in the context of a probation revocation hearing that “‘[i]n any system which vests discretion in the sentencing authority, it is necessary that the authority have sufficient and accurate information so that it may rationally exe | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Id. at 131-32 (emphases added) (footnote and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Frank David Francischine
green
1 sentence2001Francischine, 512 F.2d at 828-29 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Kaufman
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 327-28, 991 P.2d at 837-38 . *372 It was reasoned that the probation tolling provision was enacted in part to prevent a probationer from escaping probation revocation simply because his or her probation period ended before a pending probation revocation hearing was held. 2000Id. at 328 , 991 P.2d at 838 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Quelnan
green
2 sentences1995In order to present such evidence, Defendant must have access to relevant information. 10 Cf. State v. Quelnan, 70 Haw. 194 , 767 P.2d 243 (1989) (for a probation revocation hearing, the State should have responded to defense counsel’s timely request for production of items within the possession or control of the State). 1995In order to present such evidence, Defendant must have access to relevant information. 10 Cf. State v. Quelnan, 70 Haw. 194 , 767 P.2d 243 (1989) (for a probation revocation hearing, the State should have responded to defense counsel’s timely request for production of items within the possession or control of the State). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Kutzen
neutral
2 sentences1989Defense counsel’s production request made prior to the probation revocation hearing, we believe, was essentially similar to an accused’s pre-trial discovery request for relevant material or information within the prosecution’s possession or control. 7 See Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 16(b)(1)(iv); cf. State v. Kutzen, 67 Haw. 542 , 696 P.2d 351 (1985) (State’s unintentional false representation to defense counsel at pre-trial discovery conference that it had no. videotapes of defendant which it had yet to produce violated HRPP Rule 16(b)(1)(ii)). 1989Defense counsel’s production request made prior to the probation revocation hearing, we believe, was essentially similar to an accused’s pre-trial discovery request for relevant material or information within the prosecution’s possession or control. 7 See Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 16(b)(1)(iv); cf. State v. Kutzen, 67 Haw. 542 , 696 P.2d 351 (1985) (State’s unintentional false representation to defense counsel at pre-trial discovery conference that it had no. videotapes of defendant which it had yet to produce violated HRPP Rule 16(b)(1)(ii)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Aiu
green
2 sentences1980State v. Aiu, 59 Haw. 92 , 576 P.2d 1044 ; HRS § 701-105. 2 See n.3, infra. 3 The procedural rights of a probationer which might be threatened by determining his or her responsibility for a new crime in the context of a probation revocation hearing are set forth in the Commentary to Standard 5.3 of American Bar Association, Standards Relating to Probation, Approved Draft, 1970, at 62-63: The relative informality of a probation revocation proceeding, as compared to the trial of an original criminal charge, underlines the danger. 1980State v. Aiu, 59 Haw. 92 , 576 P.2d 1044 ; HRS § 701-105. 2 See n.3, infra. 3 The procedural rights of a probationer which might be threatened by determining his or her responsibility for a new crime in the context of a probation revocation hearing are set forth in the Commentary to Standard 5.3 of American Bar Association, Standards Relating to Probation, Approved Draft, 1970, at 62-63: The relative informality of a probation revocation proceeding, as compared to the trial of an original criminal charge, underlines the danger. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.