Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Friedman

89 Citing cases

  1. State v. Vladez

    42 P.3d 654 (Haw. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that "we believe the four-part colloquy referred to in Friedman is apropos"

    Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the right/wrong standard. State v. Friedman, 93 Haw. 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[W]e review the validity of a defendant's waiver of his/her right to a jury trial under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the case, taking into account the defendant's background, experience, and conduct."

  2. 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 “yes” or “no” responses rather than determining whether the defendant clearly understood the constitutional right he was giving up

    Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the right/wrong standard. State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). III.

  3. State v. Barros

    105 Haw. 160 (Haw. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 17 times

    Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the right/wrong standard." State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai'i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Barros argues at the outset that this error vitiates both his convictions, because both offenses are misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in prison.

  4. State v. Ernes

    465 P.3d 763 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    This serves several purposes: "(1) it more effectively insures voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waivers[;] (2) it promotes judicial economy by avoiding challenges to the validity of waivers on appeal[;] and (3) it emphasizes to the defendant the seriousness of the decision[.]" State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 68, 996 P.2d 268, 273 (2000) (quoting United States v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, 851-52 (9th Cir. 1985) ). A defendant may waive the right to trial by jury either orally or in writing, provided that such waiver is knowing and voluntary, and comes directly from the defendant.

  5. State v. Baker

    132 Haw. 1 (Haw. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that there was no basis for concluding the defendant’s waiver of jury trial was voluntary when the court failed to include questions regarding voluntariness in its colloquy

    Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the right/wrong standard. State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). III.

  6. State v. Echineque

    388 P.3d 50 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that the mere fact that "there could have been a salient fact that may have prevented [the defendant] from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his right to a jury trial" does not, itself, amount to a fact in the record that would suggest that his waiver was not voluntary or knowing

    "The validity of a criminal defendant's waiver of his or her right to a jury trial presents a question of state and federal constitutional law." State v. Friedman , 93 Hawai'i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000). "We answer questions of constitutional law by exercising our own independent judgment based on the facts of the case[.

  7. State v. Sprattling

    99 Haw. 312 (Haw. 2002)   Cited 68 times
    Upholding an oral accusation which omitted the modifier "bodily" from a charge of assault in the third degree

    " State v. Hanapi, 89 Hawai`i 177, 182, 970 P.2d 485, 490 (1998) (quoting State v. Mallan, 86 Haw. 440, 443, 950 P.2d 178, 181 (1998)) (citations omitted). State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai`i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000). C. Harmless Error

  8. State v. Domut

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

    Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the right/wrong standard. State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). A waiver is the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Thus, to determine whether a waiver was voluntarily and intelligently undertaken, this court will look to the totality of facts and circumstances of each particular case.

  9. State v. Torres

    439 P.3d 234 (Haw. 2019)   Cited 29 times
    Extending Tachibana to also encompass the right not to testify

    This right cannot be relinquished absent a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 68, 996 P.2d 268, 273 (2000). A waiver is knowing and intelligent when it is made with "full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it."

  10. State v. Goo-Vidinha

    NO. CAAP-11-0001027 (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2013)

    Questions of constitutional law are reviewed denovo under the right/wrong standard, with the appellate court exercising its own independent constitutional judgment based on the facts of the case.State v. Myers, 108 Hawai'i 300, 303, 119 P.3d 608, 611 (App. 2005) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted) (citing to State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai'i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000)). The validity of a defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial is reviewed "under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the case, taking into account the defendant's background, experience, and conduct."