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.
6 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2014 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. Locquiaogreen2 sentences2013The plurality noted that Locquiao held that “where a defendant has adduced evidence at trial supporting an instruction on the statutory defense of ignorance or mistake of fact, the trial court must, at the defendant’s request, separately instruct as to the defense, notwithstanding that the trial court has also instructed regarding the state of mind requisite to the charged offense.” 122 Hawai'i at 281 , 226 P.3d at 451 (citing Locquiao, 100 Hawai'i at 208 , 58 P.3d at 1255 ) (emphasis added). 2013The plurality noted that Locquiao held that “where a defendant has adduced evidence at trial supporting an instruction on the statutory defense of ignorance or mistake of fact, the trial court must, at the defendant’s request, separately instruct as to the defense, notwithstanding that the trial court has also instructed regarding the state of mind requisite to the charged offense.” 122 Hawai'i at 281 , 226 P.3d at 451 (citing Locquiao, 100 Hawai'i at 208 , 58 P.3d at 1255 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Taylor.green2 sentences2014In Locquiao , we held that “ ‘where a defendant has adduced evidence at trial supporting an instruction on the statutory defense of ignorance or mistake of fact, the trial court must, at the defendant’s request, separately instruct as to the defense ... no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence [as to the defendant’s mistake of fact] may be.’ ” Id. at 202 , 307 P.3d at 1148 (alterations in original) (quoting Stenger, 122 Hawai'i at 281 , 226 P.3d at 451 ). 2014In Locquiao , we held that “ ‘where a defendant has adduced evidence at trial supporting an instruction on the statutory defense of ignorance or mistake of fact, the trial court must, at the defendant’s request, separately instruct as to the defense ... no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence [as to the defendant’s mistake of fact] may be.’ ” Id. at 202 , 307 P.3d at 1148 (alterations in original) (quoting Stenger, 122 Hawai'i at 281 , 226 P.3d at 451 ). | 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. Stenger
green
2 sentences2014In Locquiao , we held that “ ‘where a defendant has adduced evidence at trial supporting an instruction on the statutory defense of ignorance or mistake of fact, the trial court must, at the defendant’s request, separately instruct as to the defense ... no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence [as to the defendant’s mistake of fact] may be.’ ” Id. at 202 , 307 P.3d at 1148 (alterations in original) (quoting Stenger, 122 Hawai'i at 281 , 226 P.3d at 451 ). 2014In Locquiao , we held that “ ‘where a defendant has adduced evidence at trial supporting an instruction on the statutory defense of ignorance or mistake of fact, the trial court must, at the defendant’s request, separately instruct as to the defense ... no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence [as to the defendant’s mistake of fact] may be.’ ” Id. at 202 , 307 P.3d at 1148 (alterations in original) (quoting Stenger, 122 Hawai'i at 281 , 226 P.3d at 451 ). | 3 | 2013–2014 |
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.