green
Positive treatment
20.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: J.B.
Wheeler, 121 Hawai#i at 396, 219 P.3d at 1183 (quoting State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Blyenburg
Accordingly, "in determining whether [Van Blyenburg] has been adequately informed of the charges against him, [we] can consider other information in addition to the charge that may have been provided to [him] during the course of the case up until the time [he] objected to the sufficiency of the charges against him." State v. Wheeler, 121 Hawai#i 383, 396, 219 P.3d 1170, 1183 (2009); State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984); see also State v. Hitchcock, 123 Hawai#i 369, 379, 235 P.3d 365, 375 (2010) (in case where defendant argued the charge was defective for the first time …
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Tominiko
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Wheeler, 121 Hawai'i at 396 , 219 P.3d at 1183 (stating that, because the defendant "immediately objected to the sufficiency of the State's oral charge[,] ... this court may only consider information supplied to [the defendant] prior to his timely, pre-trial objection in determining whether his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated"); State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) (concluding that grand jury transcripts fully informed the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hitchcock
(2×)
State v. Israel, 78 Hawai'i 66, 70 , 890 P.2d 303, 307 (1995) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984); State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317 , 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983)) (other citation omitted) (brackets in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. TOMINIKO
On the contrary ... `we must look to all of the information supplied to him [or her] by the State to the point where the court passes upon the contention that the right has been violated.'") (quoting State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984)); State v. Elliott, 77 Hawai'i 309, 312 , 884 P.2d 372, 375 (1994)(applying liberal construction standard and noting that "[o]ne way in which an otherwise deficient count can be reasonably construed to charge a crime is by examination of the charge as a whole."); State v. Motta, 66 Haw. 89, 91 , 657 P. 2d 1019, 1020 (1983) (under the libe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Sprattling
(2×)
Elliott , 77 Hawai`i at 312, 884 P.2d at 375 ("One way in which an otherwise deficient count can be reasonably construed to charge a crime is by examination of the charge as a whole."); State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) ("We think that in determining whether the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated, we must look to all of the information supplied to him by the State to the point where the court passes upon the contention that his right has been violated.") (quoting State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317 , 66…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Israel
State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) (quoting State v. Robins, 66 *71 Haw. 312, 317, 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983)); see also State v. Abellira, 67 Haw. 105 , 678 P.2d 1087 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Armitage
(2×)
However, in determining the sufficiency of a charge, "the appellate court can consider other information in addition to the charge that may have been provided to the defendant during the course of the case up until the time defendant objected to the sufficiency of the charges against him [or her]." Wheeler, 121 Hawai#i at 396, 219 P.3d at 1183 ; see State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) ("We think that in determining whether the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated, we must look to all of the information su…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Shaw.
(2×)
See State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Shaw
(2×)
See State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) (holding that a theft in the first degree charge was not defective where it tracked the statutory definition of the offense because the charge alleged all of the statutory elements of the offense).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kaakimaka. ICA s.d.o., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 297. Opinion by Hiraoka, J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Opinion by Guidry J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/16/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025. S.Ct. Amended Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025 [ada].
(2×)
In Robins, we said that because the defendant obtained grand jury transcripts “early in the proceedings,” that was sufficient to find, along with the indictment, that the defendant was fully informed of the charges against him. 66 Haw. at 316 , 660 P.2d at 42-43 ; see also State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) (holding that the defendant’s access to grand jury transcripts was sufficient to provide notice, even if the details of the crime 24 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** were not fully alleged in the indictment); State …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kaakimaka. ICA s.d.o., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 297. Opinion by Hiraoka, J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Opinion by Guidry J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/16/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025. S.Ct. Amended Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025 [ada].
(2×)
In Robins, we said that because the defendant obtained grand jury transcripts “early in the proceedings,” that was sufficient to find, along with the indictment, that the defendant was fully informed of the charges against him. 66 Haw. at 316 , 660 P.2d at 42-43 ; see also State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) (holding that the defendant’s access to grand jury transcripts was sufficient to provide notice, even if the details of the crime 24 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** were not fully alleged in the indictment); State …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Apollonio.
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120 , 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) (“We think that in determining whether the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated, we must look to all of the information supplied to him by the State to the point where the court passes upon the contention that his right has been violated.” (quoting State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317 , 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983))); Sprattling, 99 Hawai'i at 319 , 55 P.3d at 283 (“[I]n construing the validity of an oral charge, we are not restricted to an examination sole…
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FORREST TREAT, Defendant-Appellee
v.
FORREST TREAT, Defendant-Appellee
NO. 9004.
Hawaii Supreme Court.
Apr 4, 1984.
Tracy A. Hino on the opening brief and Emlyn H. Higa on the reply brief, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant., Randall G. Valenciano, Deputy Public Defender, on the brief for appellee.
Lum, Nakamura, Padgett, Hayashi, Wakatsuki.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing an indictment for theft in the first degree. The court below held that the use of the words “receive, retain, or dispose of” made the indictment defective.
Section 708-830(7) provides:
A person commits theft if he does any of the following:
(7) Receiving stolen property. He intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another, knowing that it has been stolen, with intent to deprive the owner of the property. . . .
The indictment in question tracked the above definition. From the record, it appears that the appellee formally moved for and obtained a copy of the grand jury transcript before the motion to dismiss was considered.
Since all of the elements of the crime of theft in the first degree as defined in HRS §§ 708-831 and 708-830(7) are alleged in the indictment, it is not effective.
Moreover, as we stated in State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317, 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983):
We think that in determining whether the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated, we must look to all of the information supplied to him by the State to the point where the court passes upon the contention that his right has been violated.
Since in the present case, as in Robins, the appellee had been supplied with the grand jury transcript which clearly established the details of the crime, he had been fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing the indictment and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.