State v. Ford

19 Citing cases

  1. State v. Basabe

    97 P.3d 418 (Haw. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    An offense is not automatically deemed serious upon satisfaction of any one of the factors. State v. Ford, 84 Hawai'i 65, 70, 929 P.2d 78, 83 (1996). Rather, "we must apply all three factors . . . in determining whether an offense is petty or serious."

  2. State v. Domut

    457 P.3d 822 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Although HRS ยง 806โ€“60 provides that a "serious crime" for which there is a right to trial by jury means "any crime for which the defendant may be imprisoned for six months or more[,]" this court has taken into account multiple factors when determining if an offense is petty or serious, for purposes of the right to trial by jury. See State v. Ford, 84 Hawaiโ€˜i 65, 69โ€“70, 929 P.2d 78, 82โ€“83 (1996). Three factors are analyzed to determine whether an offense is constitutionally petty or serious: "(1) treatment of the offense at common law; (2) the gravity of the offense; and (3) the authorized penalty."

  3. S. Salt Lake City v. Maese

    450 P.3d 1092 (Utah 2019)   Cited 18 times
    Clarifying that "[w]hen we interpret constitutional language, we start with the meaning of the text as understood when it was adopted"

    ยถ61 Hawaii similarly refers to the federal standard in analyzing the right to a jury trial under its constitution. State v. Ford , 929 P.2d 78, 81โ€“82 (Haw. 1996). Hawaiiโ€™s constitution provides the right to trial by jury "[i]n all criminal prosecutions."

  4. S. Salt Lake City v. Maese

    No. 20160646 (Utah Sep. 19, 2019)

    ยถ61 Hawaii similarly refers to the federal standard in analyzing the right to a jury trial under its constitution. State v. Ford, 929 P.2d 78, 81-82 (Haw. 1996). Hawaii's constitution provides the right to trial by jury "[i]n all criminal prosecutions."

  5. State v. Gomez-Lobato

    130 Haw. 465 (Haw. 2013)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that questions asked during a colloquy about a jury-waiver form were not sufficient to establish that a defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial where a language barrier existed and the court elicited only one word โ€œyesโ€ or โ€œnoโ€ responses rather than determining whether the defendant clearly understood the constitutional right he was giving up

    Although HRS ยง 806โ€“60 provides that a "serious crime" for which there is a right to trial by jury means "any crime for which the defendant may be imprisoned for six months or more[,]" this court has taken into account multiple factors when determining if an offense is petty or serious, for purposes of the right to trial by jury. See State v. Ford, 84 Hawaiโ€˜i 65, 69โ€“70, 929 P.2d 78, 82โ€“83 (1996). Three factors are analyzed to determine whether an offense is constitutionally petty or serious: "(1) treatment of the offense at common law; (2) the gravity of the offense; and (3) the authorized penalty."

  6. State v. Emerson

    110 Haw. 139 (Haw. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 2 times
    In State v. Emerson, 110 Hawai'i 139, 140, 129 P.3d 1167, 1168 (App. 2006), Judge Lim, writing for the ICA, elucidated that the legislature's intent in enacting the Code, similar to the legislature's intent in enacting the HRE, was to "bring uniformity" to the law, and, thus, the legislative enactment overrode a non-Code statute.

    And although the enacting legislature expressed some concern about "public disorders and breaches of the peace" resulting from obstructions of ingress or egress, Sen. Comm. of the Whole Rep. No. 10, in 1949 Senate Journal, Special Session, at 101, these were secondary effects having little resonance in the Nakata analysis. See State v. Ford, 84 Hawai`i 65, 71, 929 P.2d 78, 84 (1996) ("the legislature's concern [was] over the serious threat to public health and safety posed by unlawful sewage disposal โ€” not unlawful mooring"); Lindsey, 77 Hawai`i at 167, 883 P.2d at 88 ("the legislature was concerned primarily not with prostitution itself but with the secondary effects of prostitution" (citation omitted)). We do not, in any event, here discern on the face of it an offense of salient gravity in the galaxy of crimes encompassed by the Code.

  7. Allstate Insurance Company v. Leong

    CIVIL NO. 09-00217 SOM/KSC (D. Haw. May. 11, 2010)   Cited 1 times
    In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Leong, Civ. No. 09-00217 SOM-KSC, 2010 WL 1904978 (D. Haw. May 11, 2010), the court held that physical damage to a retaining wall gave rise to a duty to defend, although a related pure economic loss, the resulting diminution of a property's value, did not. See id. at *4-7.

    Certainly, untreated sewage can constitute a health hazard. See, e.g., State v. Ford, 84 Haw. 65, 72, 929 P.2d 78, 85 (1996) (noting that Hawaii's legislature was clearly concerned over a threat to public health and safety posed by unlawful sewage disposal). But Honolulu's sewer pipes contain more than untreated sewage that has been flushed down a toilet.

  8. State v. Godines

    138 Haw. 243 (Haw. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    For example, improper mooring of vessel is a criminal offense, even though no prison sentence can be imposed. State v. Simeona, 10 Haw.App. 220 , 229, 864 P.2d 1109 , 1114 (1993), overruled on other grounds, State v. Ford, 84 Hawai'i 65 , 929 P.2d 78 (1996). The controlling factor is whether the legislature intended to classify the penalties as criminal or civil.

  9. Lamb v. Hoffman

    2008 WL 440233 (Guam 2008)   Cited 13 times

    State courts are in accord. See, e.g., Burgess v. United States, 680 A.2d 1033 (D.C. 1996); People v. Foy, 88 N.Y.2d 742, 673 N.E.2d 589, 650 N.Y.S.2d 79 (N.Y. 1996); United States v. Sostre Narvaez, 279 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. P.R. 2003); State v. Ford, 84 Haw. 65, 929 P.2d 78, 86 n.4 (Haw. 1996); Harkins v. State, 735 So. 2d 317 (Miss. 1999).

  10. Paul v. Dept. of Transp

    115 Haw. 416 (Haw. 2007)   Cited 19 times
    Concluding that the first two factors were met, but the third was not, stating that "[the petitioner's] argument . . . does not necessitate any additional fact-finding on this court's part, and our resolution of it will not affect the integrity of the findings of fact of the [circuit] court, [b]ut neither is the question of great public import"

    She contends that the penal standard should apply because the term "penal" "pertains to any punishment or penalty and relates to acts which are not necessarily delineated as criminal." (Citing HRS ยง 701-107 (concerning grades and classes of offenses); State v. Simeona, 10 Haw.App. 220, 231, 864 P.2d 1109, 1115 (1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Ford, 84 Hawai'i 65, 929 P.2d 78 (1996); Black's Law Dictionary 1132 (6th ed.1990).) b. Paul, maintains that the vagueness of the rules allows arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement that violates her rights to due process.