State v. Davia

83 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jenkins

    93 Haw. 87 (Haw. 2000)   Cited 214 times
    Holding that possession is a prosecutable act under HRS § 702–202

    Although our holding with respect to the foregoing points is outcome-dispositive of the present appeal, we address Jenkins's remaining arguments in order to provide guidance to the parties and the circuit court on remand. Cf. State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 252, 953 P.2d 1347, 1350 (1998). HRE Rule 701 provides:

  2. State v. Hernandez

    431 P.3d 1274 (Haw. 2018)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing that "a guilty plea in itself is a conviction" (cleaned up)

    ]’ " State v. Chow, 77 Hawai‘i 241, 246, 883 P.2d 663, 668 (App. 1994) (alteration in original) (quoting R. Dawson, Sentencing 52 n.83 (1969) ). We have stated that allocution is a due process right guaranteed under article I, section 5 of the Hawai‘i Constitution.State v. Davia, 87 Hawai‘i 249, 255, 953 P.2d 1347, 1353 (1998) (citing Chow, 77 Hawai‘i at 246-47, 883 P.2d at 668-69 ). In addition, HRS § 706-604(1) (2014) provides, "Before imposing sentence, the court shall afford a fair opportunity to the defendant to be heard on the issue of the defendant’s disposition."

  3. State v. Staley

    91 Haw. 275 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 83 times
    Holding it was plain error for trial court to fail to engage defendant in a colloquy prior to accepting defendant's waiver of fundamental right to testify

    Although our holding with respect to the foregoing point is outcome-dispositive of the present appeal, we address William's remaining arguments in order to provide guidance to the parties and the circuit court on remand. Cf. State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 252, 953 P.2d 1347, 1350 (1998). Moreover, although not asserted by William as a point of error on appeal, we hold, based on our independent review of the record, that William's constitutional right to testify was violated.

  4. State v. Martin

    102 Haw. 273 (Haw. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    " Therefore, an appellate court "may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant." State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 253, 953 P.2d 1347, 1351 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The appellate court "will apply the plain error standard of review to correct errors which seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to serve the ends of justice, and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights."

  5. State v. Phua

    135 Haw. 504 (Haw. 2015)   Cited 23 times
    Explaining that a " ‘language barrier’ between the defendant and the court is a ‘salient fact’ that puts the trial court on notice that a defendant's waiver [of the right to counsel] may be ‘less than knowing and intelligent.’ "

    Allocution has been defined as “the defendant’s right to speak before sentence is imposed,” and “ ‘has been recognized as a due process right under the Hawai'i Constitution.’ ” State v. Carvalho, 90 Hawai'i 280 , 285, 978 P.2d 718 , 723 (1999) (quoting State v. Davia, 87 Hawai'i 249 , 255, 953 P.2d 1347 , *523 1353 (1998)).

  6. State v. Culkin

    97 Haw. 206 (Haw. 2001)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that the adequacy of a jury instruction is measured by determining whether the instruction clearly and correctly specifies what the jury must decide

    To provide guidance on remand, we address Culkin's remaining points of error. Cf. State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 252, 953 P.2d 1347, 1350 (1998). In so doing, we further hold: (1) that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecution to cross-examine Culkin about multiple false identification cards discovered at his house with foreknowledge that Culkin intended to invoke his fifth amendment privilege if questioned about them; and (2) that the circuit court erred by concluding that the prior reckless use by his brother, Thomas Culkin, of a .44 caliber revolver was not relevant to the reasonableness of Culkin's apprehension of danger on the morning of July 27, 1997. Culkin's remaining points of error are without merit.

  7. State v. Vanstory

    91 Haw. 33 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 76 times
    Refusing to notice plain error because court's omission of definition of semiautomatic firearm in the jury instructions was not prejudicial

    "The authority of a trial court to select and determine the severity of a penalty is normally undisturbed on review in the absence of an apparent abuse of discretion or unless applicable statutory or constitutional commands have not been observed." State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 253-54, 953 P.2d 1347, 1351-52 (1998) (citing State v. Valera, 74 Haw. 424, 439, 848 P.2d 376, 383, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 853 P.2d 542 (1993); State v. Cornelio, 84 Haw. 476, 483, 935 P.2d 1021, 1028 (1997) (quoting State v. Gaylord, 78 Haw. 127, 143-44, 890 P.2d 1167, 1183-84 (1995))). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or has disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant."

  8. Barnett v. State

    91 Haw. 20 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that when deciding whether the Rule 40 petition made such a showing of a colorable claim as to require a hearing, "the appellate court steps into the trial court's position, reviews the same trial record, and redecides the issue"; and, that, because the appellate court's determination of whether a colorable claim exists is a question of law, the trial court's decision is reviewed de novo

    State v. Valera, 74 Haw. 424, 439, 848 P.2d 376, 383, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 853 P.2d 542 (1993). State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 253-54, 953 P.2d 1347, 1351-52 (1998). C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (HRPP Rule 40 Petition)

  9. State v. Dudoit

    90 Haw. 262 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 55 times
    Observing that, due to the legislative amendment of HRS § 706-606.5, this court "perceived no need in Cornelio to expressly overrule Tavares "

    State v. Valera, 74 Haw. 424, 439, 848 P.2d 376, 383, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 853 P.2d 542 (1993). State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 253-54, 953 P.2d 1347, 1351-52 (1998) (quoting State v. Cornelio, 84 Haw. 476, 483, 935 P.2d 1021, 1028 (1997) (quoting State v. Gaylord, 78 Haw. 127, 143-44, 890 P.2d 1167, 1183-84 (1995))). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or has disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant."

  10. State v. Lee

    90 Haw. 130 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that with respect to the offense of driving without insurance, to require the State to disprove the exception for self-insurance, which is likely to be quite rare, in every case would be absurd and would defeat the Legislature’s purpose by increasing the difficulty of proving lack of coverage

    See also Haw. Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b) (1993) ("Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court."). State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 253, 953 P.2d 1347, 1351 (1998). C. Motion For A New Trial