7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2002 0 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. Maelegagreen2 sentences2002See State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 178 , 907 P.2d 758, 764 (1995) (explaining that manslaughter instruction was prejudicially erroneous because it suggested that the defense, not the prosecution, bears burden of proof). 2002See State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i 172, 178, 907 P.2d 758, 764 (1995) (explaining that manslaughter instruction was prejudicially erroneous because it suggested that the defense, not the prosecution, bears burden of proof). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsgreen2 sentences2002Cf. People v. Johns, 122 A.D.2d 74 , 504 N.Y.S.2d 485, 486 (N.Y.App.Div.1986) (inasmuch as the trial court’s instructions suggested that the jury not consider the insanity defense if it determined that defendant had proved the manslaughter defense, “[t]he charge ... created the misleading impression that the insanity defense did not apply if the jury found that defendant satisfied his burden of proving that he was acting while under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance” and that such instruction “impermissibly curtailed the jury’s consideration of the insanity defense”). 2002Cf. People v. Johns, 122 A.D.2d 74 , 504 N.Y.S.2d 485, 486 (N.Y.App.Div.1986) (inasmuch as the trial court's instructions suggested that the jury not consider the insanity defense if it determined that defendant had proved the manslaughter defense, "[t]he charge . . . created the misleading impression that the insanity defense did not apply if the jury found that defendant satisfied his burden of proving that he was acting while under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance" and that such instruction "impermissibly curtailed the jury's consideration of the insanity defense"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tyrrellgreen2 sentences1999In State v. Tyrrell, 60 Haw. 17, 29 , 586 P.2d 1028, 1036 (1978), the defendant was given a manslaughter instruction that lowered the threshold for the mens rea of “recklessness” from its statutory definition. 1999In State v. Tyrrell, 60 Haw. 17, 29 , 586 P.2d 1028, 1036 (1978), the defendant was given a manslaughter instruction that lowered the threshold for the mens rea of “recklessness” from its statutory definition. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Russogreen2 sentences1996See Maelega, 80 Hawai'i at 177 , 907 P.2d at 763 ; see also State v. Russo, 69 Haw. 72, 76 , 734 P.2d 156, 158 (1987) (holding that the trial court is not obligated to instruct the jury on the mitigating defense of extreme mental or emotional disturbance manslaughter if evidence to support the defense is clearly lacking); HRS § 701-115(2) (1993) (“No defense may be considered by the trier of fact unless evidence of the specified facts or facts has been presented.”). 1996See Maelega, 80 Hawai'i at 177 , 907 P.2d at 763 ; see also State v. Russo, 69 Haw. 72, 76 , 734 P.2d 156, 158 (1987) (holding that the trial court is not obligated to instruct the jury on the mitigating defense of extreme mental or emotional disturbance manslaughter if evidence to support the defense is clearly lacking); HRS § 701-115(2) (1993) (“No defense may be considered by the trier of fact unless evidence of the specified facts or facts has been presented.”). | 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. Warner
green
2 sentences1978We fail to find, as we did in State v. Warner, 58 Haw. 492 , 573 P.2d 959 (1977), any evidence on the record to justify a manslaughter instruction. 1978We fail to find, as we did in State v. Warner, 58 Haw. 492 , 573 P.2d 959 (1977), any evidence on the record to justify a manslaughter instruction. | 2 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2002Cf. People v. Johns, 122 A.D.2d 74 , 504 N.Y.S.2d 485, 486 (N.Y.App.Div.1986) (inasmuch as the trial court’s instructions suggested that the jury not consider the insanity defense if it determined that defendant had proved the manslaughter defense, “[t]he charge ... created the misleading impression that the insanity defense did not apply if the jury found that defendant satisfied his burden of proving that he was acting while under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance” and that such instruction “impermissibly curtailed the jury’s consideration of the insanity defense”). 2002Cf. People v. Johns, 122 A.D.2d 74 , 504 N.Y.S.2d 485, 486 (N.Y.App.Div.1986) (inasmuch as the trial court's instructions suggested that the jury not consider the insanity defense if it determined that defendant had proved the manslaughter defense, "[t]he charge . . . created the misleading impression that the insanity defense did not apply if the jury found that defendant satisfied his burden of proving that he was acting while under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance" and that such instruction "impermissibly curtailed the jury's consideration of the insanity defense"). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Yamada
green
2 sentences2002I note that that instruction similarly did not direct the jury that its decision on such a defense must be unanimous; the court’s failure to do so should not be viewed as correct. 15 See State v. Yamada, 99 Hawai'i 542 , 57 P.3d 467 (2002) (Acoba, J., concurring) (As “[e]riminal defendants are entitled to a unanimous verdict under the Hawai'i Constitution and pursuant to court rule[,]” a court is required “to inform the jury that it must unanimously agree the prosecution had failed to disprove the manslaughter defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”) Nowhere in the manslaughter defense instruction 2002I note that that instruction similarly did not direct the jury that its decision on such a defense must be unanimous; the court's failure to do so should not be viewed as correct. [15] See State v. Yamada, 99 Hawai`i 542, 57 P.3d 467 (2002) (Acoba, J., concurring) (As "[c]riminal defendants are entitled to a unanimous verdict under the Hawai`i Constitution and pursuant to court rule[,]" a court is required "to inform the jury that it must unanimously agree the prosecution had failed to disprove the manslaughter defense beyond a reasonable doubt.") Nowhere in the manslaughter defense instructio | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Seguritan
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 173-74 , 766 P.2d at 128 . 1998Id. at 173-74 , 766 P.2d at 128 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.