9 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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. Valentinegreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, “the purpose of an Arceo unanimity instruction is to eliminate any ambiguity that might infect the jury’s deliberations respecting the particular conduct in which the defendant is accused of engaging and that allegedly constitutes the charged offense.” State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 208 , 998 P.2d 479, 488 (2000). 2013Accordingly, “the purpose of an Arceo unanimity instruction is to eliminate any ambiguity that might infect the jury’s deliberations respecting the particular conduct in which the defendant is accused of engaging and that allegedly constitutes the charged offense.” State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 208 , 998 P.2d 479, 488 (2000). | 4 | 7 |
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 2010This court has stated that “the purpose of an Arceo unanimity instruction is to eliminate any ambiguity that might infect the jury’s deliberations respecting the particular conduct in which the defendant is accused of engaging and that allegedly constitutes the charged offense.” Kassebeer, 118 Hawai'i at 508 , 193 P.3d at 424 (citing Valentine , 93 Hawai‘i at 208, 998 P.2d at 488 ) (emphasis added). | 3 | 4 |
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 | 1 |
State v. Mundongreen1 sentence2021The 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 | 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. Maumalangagreen1 sentence2008See id. (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rapozagreen2 sentences2002Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a "continuous course of conduct[,]" [8] and the prosecution "argues that the requisite conduct element is satisfied by the defendant's continuous course of conduct, albeit that the defendant's continuous course of conduct may be divisible into conceptually distinct motor activity." State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai`i 321, 330, 22 P.3d 968, 977 (2001) (holding that defendant's discharging of firearm several times in the direction of each complainant "did not amount to `separate 2002Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a “continuous course of conduct!,]” 8 and the prosecution “argues that the requisite conduct element is satisfied by the defendant’s continuous course of conduct, albeit that the defendant’s continuous course of conduct may be divisible into conceptually distinct motor activity.” State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai'i 321, 330 , 22 P.3d 968, 977 (2001) (holding that defendant’s discharging of firearm several times in the direction of each complainant “did not amount to ‘separate a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kealohagreen2 sentences2002Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a "continuous course of conduct[,]" [8] and the prosecution "argues that the requisite conduct element is satisfied by the defendant's continuous course of conduct, albeit that the defendant's continuous course of conduct may be divisible into conceptually distinct motor activity." State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai`i 321, 330, 22 P.3d 968, 977 (2001) (holding that defendant's discharging of firearm several times in the direction of each complainant "did not amount to `separate 2002Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a “continuous course of conduct!,]” 8 and the prosecution “argues that the requisite conduct element is satisfied by the defendant’s continuous course of conduct, albeit that the defendant’s continuous course of conduct may be divisible into conceptually distinct motor activity.” State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai'i 321, 330 , 22 P.3d 968, 977 (2001) (holding that defendant’s discharging of firearm several times in the direction of each complainant “did not amount to ‘separate a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Apaogreen2 sentences2002Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a "continuous course of conduct[,]" [8] and the prosecution "argues that the requisite conduct element is satisfied by the defendant's continuous course of conduct, albeit that the defendant's continuous course of conduct may be divisible into conceptually distinct motor activity." State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai`i 321, 330, 22 P.3d 968, 977 (2001) (holding that defendant's discharging of firearm several times in the direction of each complainant "did not amount to `separate 2002Accordingly, Arceo is not implicated if the prosecution adduces evidence of a series of acts by the defendant that constitute a “continuous course of conduct!,]” 8 and the prosecution “argues that the requisite conduct element is satisfied by the defendant’s continuous course of conduct, albeit that the defendant’s continuous course of conduct may be divisible into conceptually distinct motor activity.” State v. Rapoza, 95 Hawai'i 321, 330 , 22 P.3d 968, 977 (2001) (holding that defendant’s discharging of firearm several times in the direction of each complainant “did not amount to ‘separate a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.