From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Kahana

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.
May 22, 2018
418 P.3d 1210 (Haw. Ct. App. 2018)

Summary

concluding that the defendant was not in custody when she answered the medical rule-out questions or while performing the field sobriety tests

Summary of this case from State v. Inenaga

Opinion

NO. CAAP-17-0000359

05-22-2018

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Krystal KAHANA, Defendant-Appellant

On the briefs: Alen M. Kaneshiro, for Defendant-Appellant. Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Kahana

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.
May 22, 2018
418 P.3d 1210 (Haw. Ct. App. 2018)

concluding that the defendant was not in custody when she answered the medical rule-out questions or while performing the field sobriety tests

Summary of this case from State v. Inenaga
Case details for

State v. Kahana

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Krystal KAHANA…

Court:Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

Date published: May 22, 2018

Citations

418 P.3d 1210 (Haw. Ct. App. 2018)

Citing Cases

State v. Inenaga

Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Inenaga was not in custody for Miranda purposes…

State v. Horvath

Further, based on the totality of the circumstances, Horvath was not subjected to custodial interrogation…