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 1995–2019 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. 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.”). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Kauhanegreen2 sentences2019In Motta, this court adopted a “liberal construction standard for post-conviction challenges to indictments,” while in Wells, we limited this standard to judicial review of charges challenged for the first time on appeal. 12 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** its conclusion that the court had erred by failing to instruct the jury on the mitigating defense to Obstructing. 7 Kauhane, 144 Hawai i at 112, 114-16, 436 P.3d at 1195, 1197-99 . 2019Kauhane, 144 Hawai i at 114, 436 P.3d at 1197 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maelegagreen2 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 |
State v. Horngreen2 sentences1996As the court stated in State v. Russo, 69 Haw. 72 , 734 P.2d 156 (1987), “ “where evidentiary support for the asserted defense, or for any of its essential components, is clearly lacking, it would not be error for the trial court either to refuse to charge on the issue or to instruct the jury not to consider it.’ ” Id. at 76 , 734 P.2d at 158 (quoting State v. Horn, 58 Haw. 252, 255 , 566 P.2d 1378, 1380-81 (1977) (citation omitted)); see also HRS § 701-115(2) (1993) (“No defense may be considered by the trier of fact unless evidence of the specified fact or facts has been presented.”). 1996As the court stated in State v. Russo, 69 Haw. 72 , 734 P.2d 156 (1987), “ “where evidentiary support for the asserted defense, or for any of its essential components, is clearly lacking, it would not be error for the trial court either to refuse to charge on the issue or to instruct the jury not to consider it.’ ” Id. at 76 , 734 P.2d at 158 (quoting State v. Horn, 58 Haw. 252, 255 , 566 P.2d 1378, 1380-81 (1977) (citation omitted)); see also HRS § 701-115(2) (1993) (“No defense may be considered by the trier of fact unless evidence of the specified fact 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. Kikuta
green
2 sentences2018In State v. Kikuta , 125 Hawai'i 78 , 95-96, 253 P.3d 639 , 656-57 (2011), the Hawai'i Supreme Court held that the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on the mitigating defense of mutual affray, which reduced the offense of Assault in the Third Degree under HRS § 707-712 from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor. 2018In State v. Kikuta , 125 Hawai'i 78 , 95-96, 253 P.3d 639 , 656-57 (2011), the Hawai'i Supreme Court held that the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on the mitigating defense of mutual affray, which reduced the offense of Assault in the Third Degree under HRS § 707-712 from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor. | 2 | 2014–2018 |
State v. Taylor.
green
2 sentences2014The State also cites this court’s decision in State v. Taylor, 130 Hawai'i 196 , 307 P.3d 1142 (2013) in support of its argument that the circuit court did not err by not instructing the jury on the EMED defense. 2014The State also cites this court’s decision in State v. Taylor, 130 Hawai'i 196 , 307 P.3d 1142 (2013) in support of its argument that the circuit court did not err by not instructing the jury on the EMED defense. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission
green
1 sentence2014The State also cites this court’s decision in State v. Taylor, 130 Hawai#i 196, 307 P.3d 142 (2013) in support of its argument that the circuit court did not err by not instructing the jury on the EMED defense. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.