5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2019 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. Fitzwater.green2 sentences2012See id. at 365-74, 227 P.3d at 531-40 (majority opinion). 2010Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we conclude that based upon State v. Fitzwater, 122 HawaiH_354, 227 P.3d 520 (2010>, Officer Russell Maeshiro's (Officer Maeshiro) testimony regarding the speed at which Yip was driving, which was based upon the officer's speedometer, was inadmissible because the State failed to establish a proper foundation to show that the 1 The Honorable Faye M. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hammellgreen2 sentences2019We therefore held that "records excluded by [the public records exception] cannot be admitted through the 'back door' as a business record." Id. (citing United States v. Weiland , 420 F.3d 1062 , 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Orellana-Blanco , 294 F.3d 1143 , 1149 (9th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. Cain , 615 F.2d 380 , 382 (5th Cir. 1980) ); see also State v. Hammell , 155 N.H. 47 , 917 A.2d 1267 , 1271 (2007) (holding the identically worded New Hampshire public records exception cannot be circumvented using the business record exception because doing so would enable "an end run aro 2019We therefore held that "records excluded by [the public records exception] cannot be admitted through the 'back door' as a business record." Id. (citing United States v. Weiland , 420 F.3d 1062 , 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Orellana-Blanco , 294 F.3d 1143 , 1149 (9th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. Cain , 615 F.2d 380 , 382 (5th Cir. 1980) ); see also State v. Hammell , 155 N.H. 47 , 917 A.2d 1267 , 1271 (2007) (holding the identically worded New Hampshire public records exception cannot be circumvented using the business record exception because doing so would enable "an end run aro | 1 | 1 |
Shanequa Terry v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See U.S. v. Ray , 930 F.2d 1368 , 1371 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that a welfare fraud investigator's testimony was sufficient to establish foundational requirements under the business record exception to hearsay regarding a recipient's welfare records, which included the recipients application for benefits reviewed by an eligibility worker, and that the properly admitted exhibits did not violate the confrontation clause); See also Terry v. State , 397 S.W.3d 823 , 835 (Tex. App. 2013) (finding that the primary purpose for a caseworker's generic worksheets generated following a welfare recipient | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Franklin Ray, United States of America v. James Franklin Raygreen1 sentence2018See U.S. v. Ray , 930 F.2d 1368 , 1371 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that a welfare fraud investigator's testimony was sufficient to establish foundational requirements under the business record exception to hearsay regarding a recipient's welfare records, which included the recipients application for benefits reviewed by an eligibility worker, and that the properly admitted exhibits did not violate the confrontation clause); See also Terry v. State , 397 S.W.3d 823 , 835 (Tex. App. 2013) (finding that the primary purpose for a caseworker's generic worksheets generated following a welfare recipient | 1 | 1 |
State v. Godshalkgreen2 sentences2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec 2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec 2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 1 |
Rackoff v. Stategreen1 sentence2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 1 |
Luginbyhl v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec 2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shiver v. Stategreen1 sentence2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Richard Anthony Cain
green
1 sentence2019We therefore held that "records excluded by [the public records exception] cannot be admitted through the 'back door' as a business record." Id. (citing United States v. Weiland , 420 F.3d 1062 , 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Orellana-Blanco , 294 F.3d 1143 , 1149 (9th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. Cain , 615 F.2d 380 , 382 (5th Cir. 1980) ); see also State v. Hammell , 155 N.H. 47 , 917 A.2d 1267 , 1271 (2007) (holding the identically worded New Hampshire public records exception cannot be circumvented using the business record exception because doing so would enable "an end run aro | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Santos Renan Orellana-Blanco
green
1 sentence2019We therefore held that "records excluded by [the public records exception] cannot be admitted through the 'back door' as a business record." Id. (citing United States v. Weiland , 420 F.3d 1062 , 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Orellana-Blanco , 294 F.3d 1143 , 1149 (9th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. Cain , 615 F.2d 380 , 382 (5th Cir. 1980) ); see also State v. Hammell , 155 N.H. 47 , 917 A.2d 1267 , 1271 (2007) (holding the identically worded New Hampshire public records exception cannot be circumvented using the business record exception because doing so would enable "an end run aro | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. William Weiland
green
1 sentence2019We therefore held that "records excluded by [the public records exception] cannot be admitted through the 'back door' as a business record." Id. (citing United States v. Weiland , 420 F.3d 1062 , 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Orellana-Blanco , 294 F.3d 1143 , 1149 (9th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. Cain , 615 F.2d 380 , 382 (5th Cir. 1980) ); see also State v. Hammell , 155 N.H. 47 , 917 A.2d 1267 , 1271 (2007) (holding the identically worded New Hampshire public records exception cannot be circumvented using the business record exception because doing so would enable "an end run aro | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Davis.
green
2 sentences2019On review, this court held that "[a]lthough ordinarily the proponent of hearsay is entitled to 'shop around' among the exceptions, the public records exception preempts" the business record exception as it applies to public records and "forecloses access to business records admissibility." Id. (quoting Addison M. 2019Davis , 140 Hawai'i at 265 , 400 P.3d at 466 (quoting Bowman, Hawaii Rules of Evidence Manual § 803-3[6][F], at 8-41 (2016-2017 ed.). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Napier v. State
green
1 sentence2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Green v. DeMarco
green
1 sentence2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rackoff v. State
green
2 sentences2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec 2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Norman
green
2 sentences2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec 2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg
green
2 sentences2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec 2007In the instant case, the district court stated: “I would agree with [defense counsel that admission of Exhibit 4 would violate the Confrontation Clause] if indeed I believe[d] [it] was testimonial or were testimonial except that Crawford 5 by its own terms indicates that evidence, lots of evidence isn’t including business records, and this is nothing other than the public twin of the business record exception.” 6 (Footnotes not in original quote.) While Hawai'i appellate courts have not ruled on the admissibility of sworn statements made by Intoxilyzer supervisors since the Supreme Court’s dec | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.