Smith defense in Hawaii

2020Appeal to the ICA On August 15, 2016, Smith appealed the circuit court’s final judgment to the ICA.17 Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest (“the Law Center”) filed an amicus curiae brief with the ICA, maintaining that “[i]t violates the spirit and [the ICA’s] prior interpretation of the Sunshine Law to deny the public the right to judicial review of OIP opinions.” Specifically, the Law Center pointed out that the ICA had previously held in Kaua‘i v. OIP, 120 Hawaiʻi 34, 43-44, 200 P.3d 403 , 412-13 that “any person” could bring suit in circuit court “to determine the applicability of

2010HRS § 706-622.5 provided in relevant part: (1) Notwithstanding any penalty or sentencing provision under part IV of chapter 712, a person convicted for the first time for any offense under part IV of chapter 712 involving possession or use, not including to distribute or manufacture as defined in section 712-1240, of any dangerous drug, detrimental drug, harmful drug, intoxicating compound, marijuana, or marijuana concentrate, as defined in section 712-1240, or involving possession or use of drug paraphernalia under section 329-43.5, who is nonviolent, as determined by the court ... shall be s

2010HRS § 706-622.5 provided in relevant part: (1) Notwithstanding any penalty or sentencing provision under part IV of chapter 712, a person convicted for the first time for any offense under part IV of chapter 712 involving possession or use, not including to distribute or manufacture as defined in section 712-1240, of any dangerous drug, detrimental drug, harmful drug, intoxicating compound, marijuana, or marijuana concentrate, as defined in section 712-1240, or involving possession or use of drug paraphernalia under section 329-43.5, who is nonviolent, as determined by the court ... shall be s

2003Smith’s defense counsel was therefore forewarned that evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions was more prejudicial than probative, yet Smith’s defense counsel neglected the court’s warning and elicited this testimony. 68 Haw. at 312 , 712 P.2d at 501 .

2003Smith’s defense counsel was therefore forewarned that evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions was more prejudicial than probative, yet Smith’s defense counsel neglected the court’s warning and elicited this testimony. 68 Haw. at 312 , 712 P.2d at 501 .

2002The ICA characterized Smith's claim as an argument "that he may have intentionally engaged in prohibited conduct because he mistakenly believed he was acting in self-defense." Id. at 463-64, 984 P.2d at 1289-90 .

2002The record shows that the jury was properly instructed concerning Smith's defense of self-defense." Id. at 464, 984 P.2d at 1290 .