10 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2023 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. Vlietgreen2 sentences2023Hawaiʻi courts have recognized that “[t]he sixth amendment and article I, section 14 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution guarantee an accused the right to the assistance of counsel in his or her defense, ... as well as the right to present a defense.” State v. Vliet, 91 Hawaiʻi 288, 294, n. 3, 983 P.2d 189, 195, n. 3 (1999) (internal citations omitted). “[T]he defendant has a constitutional right under the sixth amendment to offer a defense, and, as an adjunct to this right, to devise a proper and appropriate trial strategy to blunt or otherwise neutralize the thrust of the prosecution’s case-in-chief 2014Hawai'i courts have also recognized that “[t]he sixth amendment and article I, section 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution guarantee an accused the right to the assistance of counsel in his or her defense, ... as well as the right to present a defense.” State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai'i 288 , 294 n. 3, 983 P.2d 189 , 195 n. 3 (1999) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Kupaugreen2 sentences2023Hawaiʻi courts have recognized that “[t]he sixth amendment and article I, section 14 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution guarantee an accused the right to the assistance of counsel in his or her defense, ... as well as the right to present a defense.” State v. Vliet, 91 Hawaiʻi 288, 294, n. 3, 983 P.2d 189, 195, n. 3 (1999) (internal citations omitted). “[T]he defendant has a constitutional right under the sixth amendment to offer a defense, and, as an adjunct to this right, to devise a proper and appropriate trial strategy to blunt or otherwise neutralize the thrust of the prosecution’s case-in-chief 2023App. 503, 516 , 879 P.2d 559, 565 (1994), aff’d and remanded, 76 Hawaiʻi 387, 879 P.2d 492 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2014See Chambers, 410 U.S. at 297 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 (due process was violated because state evidence rules effectively prevented the defendant from exploring his claim that another person committed the crime for which the defendant was on trial). 2014See Chambers, 410 U.S. at 297 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 (due process was violated because state evidence rules effectively prevented the defendant from exploring his claim that another person committed the crime for which the defendant was on trial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCrorygreen2 sentences2008However, Petitioner did include it in his "Points of Error" raised with the ICA. ("The court erred when it ... denied [d]efense counsel's motion to continue trial and allow him time to file written notice under HRE [Rule] 404(b).") Nevertheless, because, as discussed infra, I believe that in denying the continuance the court abused its discretion and substantially prejudiced Petitioner's constitutional right to put forth a defense, see State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai`i 288, 294 n. 3, 983 P.2d 189 , 195 n. 3 (1999) ("The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of th 2008However, Petitioner did include it in his "Points of Error” raised with the ICA. ("The court erred when it ... denied [djefense counsel’s motion to continue trial and allow him time to file written notice under HRE [Rule] 404(b).”) Nevertheless, because, as discussed infra, I believe that in denying the continuance the court abused its discretion and substantially prejudiced Petitioner's constitutional right to put forth a defense, see State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai'i 288 , 294 n. 3, 983 P.2d 189 , 195 n. 3 (1999) ("The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2008However, Petitioner did include it in his "Points of Error" raised with the ICA. ("The court erred when it ... denied [d]efense counsel's motion to continue trial and allow him time to file written notice under HRE [Rule] 404(b).") Nevertheless, because, as discussed infra, I believe that in denying the continuance the court abused its discretion and substantially prejudiced Petitioner's constitutional right to put forth a defense, see State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai`i 288, 294 n. 3, 983 P.2d 189 , 195 n. 3 (1999) ("The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of th 2008However, Petitioner did include it in his "Points of Error” raised with the ICA. ("The court erred when it ... denied [djefense counsel’s motion to continue trial and allow him time to file written notice under HRE [Rule] 404(b).”) Nevertheless, because, as discussed infra, I believe that in denying the continuance the court abused its discretion and substantially prejudiced Petitioner's constitutional right to put forth a defense, see State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai'i 288 , 294 n. 3, 983 P.2d 189 , 195 n. 3 (1999) ("The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lutongreen2 sentences1999The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution guarantee an accused the right to the assistance of counsel in his or her defense, see, e.g., State v. Luton, 83 Hawai'i 443, 448 , 927 P.2d 844, 849 (1996), as well as the right to present a defense, see, e.g., State v. Nizam, 7 Haw.App. 402, 411 , 771 P.2d 899, 905 , cert. denied, 70 Haw. 666 , 796 P.2d 502 (1989). 4 . 1999The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution guarantee an accused the right to the assistance of counsel in his or her defense, see, e.g., State v. Luton, 83 Hawai'i 443, 448 , 927 P.2d 844, 849 (1996), as well as the right to present a defense, see, e.g., State v. Nizam, 7 Haw.App. 402, 411 , 771 P.2d 899, 905 , cert. denied, 70 Haw. 666 , 796 P.2d 502 (1989). 4 . | 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. Nizam
green
2 sentences2008However, Petitioner did include it in his "Points of Error" raised with the ICA. ("The court erred when it ... denied [d]efense counsel's motion to continue trial and allow him time to file written notice under HRE [Rule] 404(b).") Nevertheless, because, as discussed infra, I believe that in denying the continuance the court abused its discretion and substantially prejudiced Petitioner's constitutional right to put forth a defense, see State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai`i 288, 294 n. 3, 983 P.2d 189 , 195 n. 3 (1999) ("The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of th 2008However, Petitioner did include it in his "Points of Error" raised with the ICA. ("The court erred when it ... denied [d]efense counsel's motion to continue trial and allow him time to file written notice under HRE [Rule] 404(b).") Nevertheless, because, as discussed infra, I believe that in denying the continuance the court abused its discretion and substantially prejudiced Petitioner's constitutional right to put forth a defense, see State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai`i 288, 294 n. 3, 983 P.2d 189 , 195 n. 3 (1999) ("The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of th | 2 | 1999–2008 |
Washington v. Texas
green
2 sentences1981In Washington v. Texas, supra, the Supreme Court equated the right to,compulsory process to, “in plain terms the right to present a defense. . . ." Id. at 19 . 1981In Washington v. Texas, supra, the Supreme Court equated the right to,compulsory process to, “in plain terms the right to present a defense. . . ." Id. at 19 . | 2 | 1980–1981 |
Kenoa v. Meek
green
2 sentences1936(Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. 63 ; In re Title of Pelekane, 21 Haw. 175, 185 .) Kamanoualani failed to present his claim to the land commission within the time prescribed by the laws of the Kingdom, to-wit, February 14, 1849. 1936The mahele of 1848 vested no title in Kamanoualani but conferred upon him the right to present his claim to the land commission for an award of title. ( Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. 63 ; In re Title of Pelekane, 21 Haw. 175 , 185.) Kamanoualani failed to present his claim to the land commission within the time prescribed by the laws of the Kingdom, to-wit, February 14, 1849. | 2 | 1936–1936 |
In re Title of Pa Pelekane
green
2 sentences1936(Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. 63 ; In re Title of Pelekane, 21 Haw. 175, 185 .) Kamanoualani failed to present his claim to the land commission within the time prescribed by the laws of the Kingdom, to-wit, February 14, 1849. 1936The mahele of 1848 vested no title in Kamanoualani but conferred upon him the right to present his claim to the land commission for an award of title. ( Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. 63 ; In re Title of Pelekane, 21 Haw. 175 , 185.) Kamanoualani failed to present his claim to the land commission within the time prescribed by the laws of the Kingdom, to-wit, February 14, 1849. | 2 | 1936–1936 |
State v. KAPAU
green
1 sentence2023App. 503, 516 , 879 P.2d 559, 565 (1994), aff’d and remanded, 76 Hawaiʻi 387, 879 P.2d 492 (1994). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ferguson v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2014Previous United States Supreme Court eases have held that the right to present a defense free from government interference was violated by a Tennessee rule that required the defendant to be the first defense witness, Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612-613 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 , 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), and by a Georgia statute barring direct examination of the defendant, Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 593-96 , 81 S.Ct. 756 , 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961). 2014Previous United States Supreme Court eases have held that the right to present a defense free from government interference was violated by a Tennessee rule that required the defendant to be the first defense witness, Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612-613 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 , 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), and by a Georgia statute barring direct examination of the defendant, Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 593-96 , 81 S.Ct. 756 , 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Brooks v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences2014Previous United States Supreme Court eases have held that the right to present a defense free from government interference was violated by a Tennessee rule that required the defendant to be the first defense witness, Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612-613 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 , 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), and by a Georgia statute barring direct examination of the defendant, Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 593-96 , 81 S.Ct. 756 , 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961). 2014Previous United States Supreme Court eases have held that the right to present a defense free from government interference was violated by a Tennessee rule that required the defendant to be the first defense witness, Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612-613 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 , 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), and by a Georgia statute barring direct examination of the defendant, Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 593-96 , 81 S.Ct. 756 , 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Pond
green
1 sentence2008In addition, defense counsel stated that he was "stuck in court all day in trials" on the Friday before and did not receive notice until that Friday that Petitioner's trial had been moved ahead in the court's schedule and would therefore begin sooner than anticipated. [17] HRPP Rule 16 (1991), the version in effect when the trial court in Dowsett issued its discovery order, required that "the prosecutor shall disclose" certain "material and information within the prosecutor's possession or control[,]" including, pertinently, "any books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects ... w | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Toyomura
green
2 sentences1999Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i at 27 , 904 P.2d at 912 . (3) Whether the trial court deprived Appellant of a fair trial by denying him the right to present a defense by ruling that critical evidence that had a tendency to place facts before the trier of fact that Appellant was not an accomplice and had committed a lesser offense was irrelevant. 1999Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i at 27 , 904 P.2d at 912 . (3) Whether the trial court deprived Appellant of a fair trial by denying him the right to present a defense by ruling that critical evidence that had a tendency to place facts before the trier of fact that Appellant was not an accomplice and had committed a lesser offense was irrelevant. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Nixon
green
1 sentence1980So fundamental and essential is this right, that it was held to prevail over a generalized claim of Presidential privilege and confidentiality in response to a subpoena duces tecum in U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.