issue of self defense in Hawaii

5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2014 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Irvingreen haw · 1971 · cited in 3 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1978–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Irvin, 53 Haw. 119, 120 , 488 P.2d 327, 328 (1971) (trial court’s refusal to give self defense instruction was reversible error where defendant’s testimony “fairly raised the issue of self defense,” even though “[d]efendant’s theory at the trial was that the killing was accidental, not that it was done in self defense”). 2014See State v. Irvin, 53 Haw. 119, 120 , 488 P.2d 327, 328 (1971) (trial court’s refusal to give self defense instruction was reversible error where defendant’s testimony “fairly raised the issue of self defense,” even though “[d]efendant’s theory at the trial was that the killing was accidental, not that it was done in self defense”).	3	3
State v. Santiagogreen haw · 1971 · cited in 3 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1978–2011 2 sentences 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553	3	3
Territory v. Alcantaragreen haw · 1918 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1978–1979 2 sentences 1979In that case, 59 Haw. at 153-154 , 577 P.2d at 797 , we said: Because there was evidence before the jury on the issue of self defense, appellant “was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court.” (Emphasis added.) We cited State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971); State v. Irvin, 53 Haw. 119, 121 , 488 P.2d 327, 328 (1971); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22, 47 , 374 P.2d 5, 18 (1962); and Territory v. Alcantara, 24 Haw. 197, 208 (1918), in support of the quoted portion of the above la 1978Because there was evidence before the jury on the issue of self defense, appellant “was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive the *154 testimony might have appeared to the court. ” State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971); State v. Irvin , 53 Haw. 119, 121 , 488 P.2d 327, 328 (1971); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22, 47 , 374 P.2d 5, 18 (1962); Territory v. Alcantara, 24 Haw. 197, 208 (1918).	2	2
State v. Changgreen haw · 1962 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1978–1979 2 sentences 1979In that case, 59 Haw. at 153-154 , 577 P.2d at 797 , we said: Because there was evidence before the jury on the issue of self defense, appellant “was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court.” (Emphasis added.) We cited State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971); State v. Irvin, 53 Haw. 119, 121 , 488 P.2d 327, 328 (1971); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22, 47 , 374 P.2d 5, 18 (1962); and Territory v. Alcantara, 24 Haw. 197, 208 (1918), in support of the quoted portion of the above la 1979In that case, 59 Haw. at 153-154 , 577 P.2d at 797 , we said: Because there was evidence before the jury on the issue of self defense, appellant “was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court.” (Emphasis added.) We cited State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971); State v. Irvin, 53 Haw. 119, 121 , 488 P.2d 327, 328 (1971); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22, 47 , 374 P.2d 5, 18 (1962); and Territory v. Alcantara, 24 Haw. 197, 208 (1918), in support of the quoted portion of the above la	2	2
State v. Riveiragreen haw · 1978 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1979–2011 2 sentences 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553	1	2
State v. Pavaogreen hawapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553	1	1
State v. Romangreen haw · 2008 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted). 2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).	1	1
State v. Stockergreen haw · 1999 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted). 2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).	1	1
State v. Liragreen haw · 1988 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553 2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved”); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553	1	1
Klaes v. Schollgreen iowa · 1985 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986Evidence of character for violence of the victim of assaultive conduct offered on the issue of self defense by a party accused of the assaultive conduct, or evidence of peaceable character to rebut the same: Klaes v Scholl, 375 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Iowa 1985). 10 Where the defendant pleads self-defense in a civil assault and battery case, the defendant may prove his knowledge of the plaintiffs violent character by evidence of other “crimes, wrongs, or acts” under Rule 404(b), Hawaii Rules of Evidence. 11 See note 12, infra. 12 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) provides in part: Every person who, under color	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Metcalfe. green haw · 2013 1 sentence 2014Consistent with this recognition, this court has expressly rejected the argument that the defendant’s reliance on a theory of self-defense constitutes a bar to the presentation of the EMED defense to the jury.32 Warner, 58 Haw. at 498-99 , 573 32 Our decision in State v. Metcalfe, 129 Hawai#i 206, 297 P.3d 1062 (2013) is not inconsistent with this position.	1	2014–2014
State v. Warner green haw · 1977 2 sentences 2014Consistent with this recognition, this court has expressly rejected the argument that the defendant’s reliance on a theory of self-defense constitutes a bar to the presentation of the EMED defense to the jury. 32 Warner, 58 Haw. at 498-99 , 573 P.2d at 963 . 2014Consistent with this recognition, this court has expressly rejected the argument that the defendant’s reliance on a theory of self-defense constitutes a bar to the presentation of the EMED defense to the jury.32 Warner, 58 Haw. at 498-99 , 573 32 Our decision in State v. Metcalfe, 129 Hawai#i 206, 297 P.3d 1062 (2013) is not inconsistent with this position.	1	2014–2014
Quality Furniture, Inc. v. Hay green haw · 1979 2 sentences 1986Quality Furniture, Inc. v. Hay, 61 Haw. 89 , 595 P.2d 1066 (1979); Johnson v. Robert’s Hawaii Tour, Inc., 4 Haw. 1986Quality Furniture, Inc. v. Hay, 61 Haw. 89 , 595 P.2d 1066 (1979); Johnson v. Robert’s Hawaii Tour, Inc., 4 Haw.	1	1986–1986
Johnson v. Robert's Hawaii Tour, Inc. green hawapp · 1983 1 sentence 1986Quality Furniture, Inc. v. Hay, 61 Haw. 89 , 595 P.2d 1066 (1979); Johnson v. Robert’s Hawaii Tour, Inc., 4 Haw.	1	1986–1986
People v. Sam green cal · 1969 2 sentences 1979We further cited in support of this proposition State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975); People v. Moya, 182 Colo. 290 , 512 P.2d 1155 (1973); and People v. Sam, 71 Cal. 2d 194, 77 Cal. Rptr. 804 , 454 P.2d 700 (1969). 1979We further cited in support of this proposition State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975); People v. Moya, 182 Colo. 290 , 512 P.2d 1155 (1973); and People v. Sam, 71 Cal. 2d 194, 77 Cal. Rptr. 804 , 454 P.2d 700 (1969).	1	1979–1979
State v. Boyd green kan · 1975 2 sentences 1979We further cited in support of this proposition State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975); People v. Moya, 182 Colo. 290 , 512 P.2d 1155 (1973); and People v. Sam, 71 Cal. 2d 194, 77 Cal. Rptr. 804 , 454 P.2d 700 (1969). 1979We further cited in support of this proposition State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975); People v. Moya, 182 Colo. 290 , 512 P.2d 1155 (1973); and People v. Sam, 71 Cal. 2d 194, 77 Cal. Rptr. 804 , 454 P.2d 700 (1969).	1	1979–1979
People v. Moya green colo · 1973 2 sentences 1979We further cited in support of this proposition State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975); People v. Moya, 182 Colo. 290 , 512 P.2d 1155 (1973); and People v. Sam, 71 Cal. 2d 194, 77 Cal. Rptr. 804 , 454 P.2d 700 (1969). 1979We further cited in support of this proposition State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975); People v. Moya, 182 Colo. 290 , 512 P.2d 1155 (1973); and People v. Sam, 71 Cal. 2d 194, 77 Cal. Rptr. 804 , 454 P.2d 700 (1969).	1	1979–1979

Where else courts name it

TX 63 (1959–2025) PA 6 (1991–2022) HI 5 (1978–2014) TN 5 (1962–2022) CA 5 (2013–2023) LA 5 (1983–1991) OH 4 (2023–2026) FL 4 (1978–2014) IN 3 (1975–2020) MO 3 (1983–2023) AL 2 (1978–2026) OK 2 (1906–2011) ND 2 (1992–1997) NC 2 (1982–2001) MA 2 (1973–2008) NJ 2 (1997–2010) RI 2 (1985–2003)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check