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.
9 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2021 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. Rapozagreen2 sentences2009See generally, State v. Kassebeer, 118 Hawai`i 493, 511, 193 P.3d 409, 423 (2008) (within context of kidnapping charge, holding that failure to provide Arceo instruction constituted plain error); State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai`i 321, 328-30, 22 P.3d 968, 975-77 (2001) (within context of assault charges, act of discharging a firearm multiple times did not amount to "separate and distinct culpable acts" requiring Arceo instruction). 2008See, e.g., State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai'i 321, 328-30 , 22 P.3d 968, 975-77 (2001) (holding that the act of discharging a firearm multiple times did not amount to “separate and distinct culpable acts” requiring an Arceo instruction); State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 208-09 , 998 P.2d 479, 488-89 (2000) (stating that, although the defendant made multiple attempts to wrest control of an officer’s sidearm, the actions comprised only a single episode that did not mandate an Arceo instruction). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Mundongreen2 sentences2021The Arceo requirement of a unanimity instruction applies when "separate and distinct culpable acts" are subsumed within a single charge, "any one of which could support a conviction thereunder." State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai#i 339, 350, 219 P.3d 1126, 1137 (2009) (quoting Arceo, 84 Hawai#i at 32-33, 928 P.2d at 874-75 ). "[T]wo conditions must converge before an Arceo unanimity instruction, absent an election by the prosecution, is necessary: (1) at trial, the prosecution adduces proof of two or more separate and distinct culpable acts; and (2) the prosecution seeks to submit to the jury that onl 2010State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai'i 339, 355 , 219 P.3d 1126, 1142 (2009), involved multiple acts and double jeopardy. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kassebeergreen2 sentences2021The Arceo requirement of a unanimity instruction applies when "separate and distinct culpable acts" are subsumed within a single charge, "any one of which could support a conviction thereunder." State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai#i 339, 350, 219 P.3d 1126, 1137 (2009) (quoting Arceo, 84 Hawai#i at 32-33, 928 P.2d at 874-75 ). "[T]wo conditions must converge before an Arceo unanimity instruction, absent an election by the prosecution, is necessary: (1) at trial, the prosecution adduces proof of two or more separate and distinct culpable acts; and (2) the prosecution seeks to submit to the jury that onl 2009See generally, State v. Kassebeer, 118 Hawai`i 493, 511, 193 P.3d 409, 423 (2008) (within context of kidnapping charge, holding that failure to provide Arceo instruction constituted plain error); State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai`i 321, 328-30, 22 P.3d 968, 975-77 (2001) (within context of assault charges, act of discharging a firearm multiple times did not amount to "separate and distinct culpable acts" requiring Arceo instruction). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Valentinegreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai'i 321, 328-30 , 22 P.3d 968, 975-77 (2001) (holding that the act of discharging a firearm multiple times did not amount to “separate and distinct culpable acts” requiring an Arceo instruction); State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 208-09 , 998 P.2d 479, 488-89 (2000) (stating that, although the defendant made multiple attempts to wrest control of an officer’s sidearm, the actions comprised only a single episode that did not mandate an Arceo instruction). 2008See, e.g., State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai'i 321, 328-30 , 22 P.3d 968, 975-77 (2001) (holding that the act of discharging a firearm multiple times did not amount to “separate and distinct culpable acts” requiring an Arceo instruction); State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 208-09 , 998 P.2d 479, 488-89 (2000) (stating that, although the defendant made multiple attempts to wrest control of an officer’s sidearm, the actions comprised only a single episode that did not mandate an Arceo instruction). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Arceogreen2 sentences2021The Arceo requirement of a unanimity instruction applies when "separate and distinct culpable acts" are subsumed within a single charge, "any one of which could support a conviction thereunder." State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai#i 339, 350, 219 P.3d 1126, 1137 (2009) (quoting Arceo, 84 Hawai#i at 32-33, 928 P.2d at 874-75 ). "[T]wo conditions must converge before an Arceo unanimity instruction, absent an election by the prosecution, is necessary: (1) at trial, the prosecution adduces proof of two or more separate and distinct culpable acts; and (2) the prosecution seeks to submit to the jury that onl 2021The Arceo requirement of a unanimity instruction applies when "separate and distinct culpable acts" are subsumed within a single charge, "any one of which could support a conviction thereunder." State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai#i 339, 350, 219 P.3d 1126, 1137 (2009) (quoting Arceo, 84 Hawai#i at 32-33, 928 P.2d at 874-75 ). "[T]wo conditions must converge before an Arceo unanimity instruction, absent an election by the prosecution, is necessary: (1) at trial, the prosecution adduces proof of two or more separate and distinct culpable acts; and (2) the prosecution seeks to submit to the jury that onl | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2010Although this issue was not raised by Petitioner in either the briefs or Application, this court has “the power to sua sponte notice plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights[.]” State v. Hernandez, 61 Haw. 475, 482 , 605 P.2d 75, 79 (1980). 2010Although this issue was not raised by Petitioner in either the briefs or Application, this court has “the power to sua sponte notice plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights[.]” State v. Hernandez, 61 Haw. 475, 482 , 605 P.2d 75, 79 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hironakagreen2 sentences2010This court subsequently characterized the test for whether an Arceo instruction is necessary in Hironaka as follows: Beyond the context of sexual assault charges, this court has held that an Arceo unanimity instruction is required, absent an election by the prosecution, when “at trial, the prosecution adduced proof of two or more separate and distinct culpable acts; and the prosecution seeks to submit to the jury that only one offense was committed.” Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a “continuous cours 2010This court subsequently characterized the test for whether an Arceo instruction is necessary in Hironaka as follows: Beyond the context of sexual assault charges, this court has held that an Arceo unanimity instruction is required, absent an election by the prosecution, when “at trial, the prosecution adduced proof of two or more separate and distinct culpable acts; and the prosecution seeks to submit to the jury that only one offense was committed.” Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a “continuous cours | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richiegreen2 sentences2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai`i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction") (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai`i 128, 145, 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). [3] Similarly, defense counsel argued in closing that the purpose of the Arceo instruction was to ensure unanimity with regard to the alleged failure to disperse from the first floor versus the alleged failure to disperse from the second fl 2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai`i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction") (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai`i 128, 145, 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). [3] Similarly, defense counsel argued in closing that the purpose of the Arceo instruction was to ensure unanimity with regard to the alleged failure to disperse from the first floor versus the alleged failure to disperse from the second fl | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quitoggreen2 sentences2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai`i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction") (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai`i 128, 145, 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). [3] Similarly, defense counsel argued in closing that the purpose of the Arceo instruction was to ensure unanimity with regard to the alleged failure to disperse from the first floor versus the alleged failure to disperse from the second fl 2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai`i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction") (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai`i 128, 145, 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). [3] Similarly, defense counsel argued in closing that the purpose of the Arceo instruction was to ensure unanimity with regard to the alleged failure to disperse from the first floor versus the alleged failure to disperse from the second fl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Fernandez
neutral
2 sentences2019We held that "[i]n a case like this involving an offense like this, the focus is on the single incident of culpable conduct, and not on its component acts, and the Arceo doctrine simply does not apply." Id. 2019We held that "[i]n a case like this involving an offense like this, the focus is on the single incident of culpable conduct, and not on its component acts, and the Arceo doctrine simply does not apply." Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Schnabel.
green
2 sentences2013Under the plain error rule, "[t]his court has the power to take notice of 'plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights ... although they were not brought to the attention of the court.’ ” State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawai'i 432 , 447 n. 28, 279 P.3d 1237 , 1252 n. 28 (2012) (quoting Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b)). 2013Under the plain error rule, "[t]his court has the power to take notice of 'plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights ... although they were not brought to the attention of the court.’ ” State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawai'i 432 , 447 n. 28, 279 P.3d 1237 , 1252 n. 28 (2012) (quoting Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.