categorical rule in Hawaii

2017See, e.g., State v. Pulse, 83 Hawaii 229, 239, 925 P.2d 797, 807 (1996) (concluding that circuit court did not abuse its discretion, when it considered that the charge involved assaultive behavior with a firearm).11 Fukuoka’s argument in support of a categorical rule as to misdemeanor and petty offenses for purposes of an HRPP Rule 10 The proceedings in this case are illustrative of the complications inherent in relying on the underlying facts of a case when analyzing the seriousness of the offense factor.

2002Subsequently, in Guth , this court established another exception to the physical injury rule, holding that "the policies behind the NIED cause of action and HRS ง 663-8.9 support allowing a claim for NIED arising from the negligent mishandling of a corpse." 96 Hawai`i at 154, 28 P.3d at 989 (footnote omitted).

2002Subsequently, in Guth , this court established another exception to the physical injury rale, holding that “the policies behind the NIED cause of action and HRS § 663-8.9 support allowing a claim for NIED arising from the negligent mishandling of a corpse.” 96 Hawai'i at 154 , 28 P.3d at 989 (footnote omitted).

1998Id. at 2017 (citations omitted) (ellipsis points and emphasis in original). *5 The plurality opinion noted that lengthy common law tradition “that a drunken offender shall have the same judgment ‘as if he were in his right senses’ must be understood as precluding a defendant from arguing that, because of his intoxication, he could not have possessed the mens rea required to commit the crime.” Id. at 2018.

1998Id. at 2017 (citations omitted) (ellipsis points and emphasis in original). *5 The plurality opinion noted that lengthy common law tradition “that a drunken offender shall have the same judgment ‘as if he were in his right senses’ must be understood as precluding a defendant from arguing that, because of his intoxication, he could not have possessed the mens rea required to commit the crime.” Id. at 2018.