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.
7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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. Kahinugreen2 sentences2022As a general rule, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the injection of irrelevant references to prior arrests, convictions, or imprisonment warrants "a mere prophylactic cautionary instruction or the radical surgery of declaring a mistrial." Loa, 83 Hawai#i at 353, 926 P.2d at 1276 (quoting State v. Kahinu, 53 Haw. 536, 549 , 498 P.2d 635, 644 (1972)). 2022As a general rule, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the injection of irrelevant references to prior arrests, convictions, or imprisonment warrants "a mere prophylactic cautionary instruction or the radical surgery of declaring a mistrial." Loa, 83 Hawai#i at 353, 926 P.2d at 1276 (quoting State v. Kahinu, 53 Haw. 536, 549 , 498 P.2d 635, 644 (1972)). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Samuelgreen2 sentences2008When determining whether a witness's improper remark requires the declaration of a mistrial, we look at three factors: "[1] the nature of the misconduct[;] [2] the promptness of a curative instruction or lack of it[;] and [3] the strength or weakness of the evidence against the defendant." State v. Samuel, 74 Haw. 141, 148-49 , 838 P.2d 1374, 1378 (1992). 2008When determining whether a witness's improper remark requires the declaration of a mistrial, we look at three factors: "[1] the nature of the misconduct[;] [2] the promptness of a curative instruction or lack of it[;] and [3] the strength or weakness of the evidence against the defendant." State v. Samuel, 74 Haw. 141, 148-49 , 838 P.2d 1374, 1378 (1992). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Webstergreen2 sentences2008And then he was telling me who hit me, this and that. [Prosecutor]: So he accused you of having — [The CW]: Having another boyfriend to abuse me. [5] (Emphasis added.) Generally, the trial court "has the discretion to determine whether the challenged statement merits a mere prophylactic cautionary instruction or the radical surgery of declaring a mistrial." State v. Webster, 94 Hawaii 241, 248 , 11 P.3d 466, 473 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing State v. Kahinu, 53 Haw. 536, 549-50 , 498 P.2d 635, 644 (1972)). 2008And then he was telling me who hit me, this and that. [Prosecutor]: So he accused you of having — [The CW]: Having another boyfriend to abuse me. [5] (Emphasis added.) Generally, the trial court "has the discretion to determine whether the challenged statement merits a mere prophylactic cautionary instruction or the radical surgery of declaring a mistrial." State v. Webster, 94 Hawaii 241, 248 , 11 P.3d 466, 473 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing State v. Kahinu, 53 Haw. 536, 549-50 , 498 P.2d 635, 644 (1972)). | 1 | 1 |
Forrest S. Tucker v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1996We are satisfied that the instant ease merits application of the rule stated in Tucker v. United States, 431 F.2d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir.1970): ... [T]he reception of evidence pertaining to prior convictions [or imprisonment] ... may, under the circumstances of a particular case, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, applying the principle announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] ... (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences1996We are satisfied that the instant ease merits application of the rule stated in Tucker v. United States, 431 F.2d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir.1970): ... [T]he reception of evidence pertaining to prior convictions [or imprisonment] ... may, under the circumstances of a particular case, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, applying the principle announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] ... (1967). 1992In State v. Kahinu, 53 Haw. 536, 549-50 , 498 P.2d 635, 643-44 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1126 (1973), we acknowledged that it is for the trial court to determine *148 whether the deliberate and unresponsive injection by prosecution witnesses of irrelevant references to prior arrests, conviction, or imprisonment merits a mere prophylactic cautionary instruction or a mistrial. [T]he reception of evidence pertaining to prior convictions ... may, under the circumstances of a particular case, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, applying the principle announced in Chapman v. California, 386 | 2 | 1992–1996 |
State v. Loa
green
1 sentence2022As a general rule, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the injection of irrelevant references to prior arrests, convictions, or imprisonment warrants "a mere prophylactic cautionary instruction or the radical surgery of declaring a mistrial." Loa, 83 Hawai#i at 353, 926 P.2d at 1276 (quoting State v. Kahinu, 53 Haw. 536, 549 , 498 P.2d 635, 644 (1972)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Kahinu v. Hawaii
green
1 sentence1992In State v. Kahinu, 53 Haw. 536, 549-50 , 498 P.2d 635, 643-44 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1126 (1973), we acknowledged that it is for the trial court to determine *148 whether the deliberate and unresponsive injection by prosecution witnesses of irrelevant references to prior arrests, conviction, or imprisonment merits a mere prophylactic cautionary instruction or a mistrial. [T]he reception of evidence pertaining to prior convictions ... may, under the circumstances of a particular case, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, applying the principle announced in Chapman v. California, 386 | 1 | 1992–1992 |