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 1995–2021 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. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2002Because “‘it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements!,]’ ” State v. Jones, 96 Hawai'i 161, 168 , 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i at 108 , 997 P.2d at 34 ), we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define “drug paraphernalia” in the instant case. “ ‘[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior[.]’” State v. Vanstory, 91 Hawai'i 33, 44 2002Because “‘it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements!,]’ ” State v. Jones, 96 Hawai'i 161, 168 , 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i at 108 , 997 P.2d at 34 ), we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define “drug paraphernalia” in the instant case. “ ‘[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior[.]’” State v. Vanstory, 91 Hawai'i 33, 44 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Vanstorygreen2 sentences2021Because "'it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements[,]'" State v. Jones, 96 Hawai#i 161, 168, 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting [State v. ]Jenkins, 93 Hawai#i [87,] 108, 997 P.2d [13,] 34 [(2000)]), 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define "drug paraphernalia" in the instant case. "'[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to e 2002Because “‘it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements!,]’ ” State v. Jones, 96 Hawai'i 161, 168 , 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i at 108 , 997 P.2d at 34 ), we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define “drug paraphernalia” in the instant case. “ ‘[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior[.]’” State v. Vanstory, 91 Hawai'i 33, 44 | 2 | 2 |
United States v. David Johnsongreen2 sentences2021Because "'it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements[,]'" State v. Jones, 96 Hawai#i 161, 168, 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting [State v. ]Jenkins, 93 Hawai#i [87,] 108, 997 P.2d [13,] 34 [(2000)]), 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define "drug paraphernalia" in the instant case. "'[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to e 2002Because “‘it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements!,]’ ” State v. Jones, 96 Hawai'i 161, 168 , 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i at 108 , 997 P.2d at 34 ), we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define “drug paraphernalia” in the instant case. “ ‘[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior[.]’” State v. Vanstory, 91 Hawai'i 33, 44 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2021Because "'it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements[,]'" State v. Jones, 96 Hawai#i 161, 168, 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting [State v. ]Jenkins, 93 Hawai#i [87,] 108, 997 P.2d [13,] 34 [(2000)]), 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define "drug paraphernalia" in the instant case. "'[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to e 2002Because “‘it is a grave error to submit a criminal case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements!,]’ ” State v. Jones, 96 Hawai'i 161, 168 , 29 P.3d 351, 358 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i at 108 , 997 P.2d at 34 ), we conclude that it was not harmless error for the court to have failed to define “drug paraphernalia” in the instant case. “ ‘[A]n essential or material element of a crime is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior[.]’” State v. Vanstory, 91 Hawai'i 33, 44 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pinerogreen2 sentences2000“It is a grave error to submit a [criminal] case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements.” 16 Pinero I, 70 Haw. at 527, 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting 2 C. 2000"It is a grave error to submit a [criminal] case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements." [16] Pinero I, 70 Haw. at 527, 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting 2 C. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Broomgreen1 sentence2021Kupihea, 98 Hawai#i at 204, 46 P.3d at 506 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Abella, 145 Hawai#i at 556-60, 454 P.3d at 497-501 (holding that the failure to instruct the jury on intervening causation was plain error in a manslaughter prosecution); State v. Paris, 138 Hawai#i 254, 265, 378 P.3d 970, 981 (2016) (holding that a jury instruction that "finds no basis in the statutory definition of 'custody,'" and was inconsistent with another instruction stating the statutory definition of custody, was erroneous, inconsistent and misleading); see also People v. Broom, 797 P.2d 754, 757 (Colo. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kupiheagreen1 sentence2021Kupihea, 98 Hawai#i at 204, 46 P.3d at 506 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Abella, 145 Hawai#i at 556-60, 454 P.3d at 497-501 (holding that the failure to instruct the jury on intervening causation was plain error in a manslaughter prosecution); State v. Paris, 138 Hawai#i 254, 265, 378 P.3d 970, 981 (2016) (holding that a jury instruction that "finds no basis in the statutory definition of 'custody,'" and was inconsistent with another instruction stating the statutory definition of custody, was erroneous, inconsistent and misleading); see also People v. Broom, 797 P.2d 754, 757 (Colo. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paris.green1 sentence2021Kupihea, 98 Hawai#i at 204, 46 P.3d at 506 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Abella, 145 Hawai#i at 556-60, 454 P.3d at 497-501 (holding that the failure to instruct the jury on intervening causation was plain error in a manslaughter prosecution); State v. Paris, 138 Hawai#i 254, 265, 378 P.3d 970, 981 (2016) (holding that a jury instruction that "finds no basis in the statutory definition of 'custody,'" and was inconsistent with another instruction stating the statutory definition of custody, was erroneous, inconsistent and misleading); see also People v. Broom, 797 P.2d 754, 757 (Colo. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Abella.green1 sentence2021Kupihea, 98 Hawai#i at 204, 46 P.3d at 506 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Abella, 145 Hawai#i at 556-60, 454 P.3d at 497-501 (holding that the failure to instruct the jury on intervening causation was plain error in a manslaughter prosecution); State v. Paris, 138 Hawai#i 254, 265, 378 P.3d 970, 981 (2016) (holding that a jury instruction that "finds no basis in the statutory definition of 'custody,'" and was inconsistent with another instruction stating the statutory definition of custody, was erroneous, inconsistent and misleading); see also People v. Broom, 797 P.2d 754, 757 (Colo. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Willisgreen2 sentences1998Erroneous instructions are “ ‘presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it appeal's from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial.’” Pinero, 70 Haw. at 527 , 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting Turner v. Willis, 59 Haw. 319, 326 , 582 P.2d 710, 715 (1978)). 1998Erroneous instructions are “ ‘presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it appeal's from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial.’” Pinero, 70 Haw. at 527 , 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting Turner v. Willis, 59 Haw. 319, 326 , 582 P.2d 710, 715 (1978)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holbrongreen2 sentences1998The instruction, thus, was erroneous. “ ‘It is a grave error to submit a [criminal] case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements.’ ” State v. Holbron, 78 Hawai'i 422, 426 , 895 P.2d 173, 177 (App.1995) (quoting State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. 509, 527 , 778 P.2d 704, 715 (1989)). 1998The instruction, thus, was erroneous. “ ‘It is a grave error to submit a [criminal] case to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements.’ ” State v. Holbron, 78 Hawai'i 422, 426 , 895 P.2d 173, 177 (App.1995) (quoting State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. 509, 527 , 778 P.2d 704, 715 (1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Ozaki v. Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Baygreen1 sentence1998See ICA’s decision, at 280, 954 P.2d at 659 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Horswillgreen2 sentences1995Although Defendant did not object to the instructions below, we may take notice of plain errors which affect the substantial rights of defendants, State v. Horswill, 75 Haw. 152, 156 , 857 P.2d 579, 581-82 (1993); Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b), and we do so here. 5 For, “ ‘[i]t is a grave error to submit a [criminal] ease to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements.’ ” Pinero, 70 Haw. at 527 , 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting 2 C. 1995Although Defendant did not object to the instructions below, we may take notice of plain errors which affect the substantial rights of defendants, State v. Horswill, 75 Haw. 152, 156 , 857 P.2d 579, 581-82 (1993); Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b), and we do so here. 5 For, “ ‘[i]t is a grave error to submit a [criminal] ease to a jury without accurately defining the offense charged and its elements.’ ” Pinero, 70 Haw. at 527 , 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting 2 C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of Doe
green
2 sentences2005In re Jane Doe, Born on June 20, 1995, 95 Hawai'i at 189 , 20 P.3d at 622 . 2005In re Jane Doe, Born on June 20, 1995, 95 Hawai'i at 189 , 20 P.3d at 622 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Cornelio
green
1 sentence2000Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 487, at 723) (1982) (brackets in original); cf. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i at 32-33 , 928 P.2d at 874-75 (holding that trial court committed plain error in failing to give a specific unanimity instruction where “separate and distinct culpable acts are subsumed within a single count ... [,] any one of which could support a conviction thereunder”). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.