State v. Griffin

14 Citing cases

  1. Gray v. Administrative Director of Court

    84 Haw. 138 (Haw. 1997)   Cited 187 times
    Ruling that legislation will be construed to avoid an absurd result

    "Furthermore, the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality." State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105, 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214 n. 4 (1996) (quoting State v. Malufau, 80 Haw. 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). See also HRS § 1-15(3) (1993) ("Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.").

  2. State v. Naititi

    104 Haw. 224 (Haw. 2004)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that "the intent of" HRS § 641-13 is "to facilitate the administration of justice in criminal cases by allowing the prosecution to obtain a conclusive ruling on" suppression issues through a direct appeal

    "[T]he legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality." State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105, 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214 n. 4 (1996) (quoting State v. Malufau, 80 Haw. 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). See also HRS § 1-15(3) (1993) ("Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.").

  3. State v. Haugen

    104 Haw. 71 (Haw. 2004)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that, although a statute regarding sentencing for first-time drug offenders was "plain, obvious, and unambiguous" in its terms, construing the statute by its plain language would be inconsistent with, contrary to, and illogical in light of the legislature's intent in enacting the statute

    "the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, andillogicality." State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105, 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214 n. 4 (1996) (quoting State v. Malufau, 80 Haw. 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). See also HRS § 1-15(3) (1993) ("Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.").

  4. State v. Feliciano

    103 Haw. 269 (Haw. 2003)   Cited 7 times
    Differentiating between these types

    Yamamoto apparently relied on this provision in determining that a FSO could be imposed and, thus, could extend beyond a sentence of probation. 79 Hawai`i at 515-16 nn. 5-6, 904 P.2d at 529-30 nn. 56. In State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105, 924 P.2d 1211 (1996), this court observed that an order of restitution is both a condition and a FSO. Id. at 108, 924 P.2d at 1214 (citing Yamamoto, 79 Hawai`i at 515-16 nn. 56, 904 P.2d at 529-530 nn. 56). As to any perceived difference between Griffin and Yamamoto, we clarify that in pre-1998 cases, a FSO could have been imposed at the time of the original sentence if it was imposed as a separate order, independent of a sentence of probation and/or imprisonment at the time of sentencing.

  5. Beneficial Hawai‘i, Inc. v. Kida

    96 Haw. 289 (Haw. 2001)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that a party to an unenforceable contract may have a restitution claim in some circumstances

    "Furthermore, the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality." State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105, 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214 n. 4 (1996) (quoting State v. Malufau, 80 Haw. 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). See alsoHRS § 1-15(3) (1993) ("Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.").

  6. State v. Wang

    981 P.2d 230 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 7 times

    As the prosecution has repeatedly noted, "the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality." Gray, 84 Haw. at 148, 931 P.2d at 590 (citing State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105, 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214 n. 4 (1996) (quoting State v. Malufau, 80 Haw. 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); HRS § 1-15(3) (1993) ("Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.")). Accordingly, we hold that the plain language and the legislative intent underlying HRS § 431:10C-104.

  7. State v. Cornelio

    84 Haw. 476 (Haw. 1997)   Cited 48 times
    Noting that "the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality"

    "the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality." State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105, 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214 n. 4 (1996) (quoting State v. Malufau, 80 Haw. 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). See also HRS § 1-15(3) (1993) ("Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.").

  8. State v. Johnson

    92 Haw. 36 (Haw. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that "HRS § 706-644 as amended in 1998, does not apply to this case because the proceedings at issue began on September 15, 1997"

    In the instant case[, Defendant's] period of probation was scheduled to expire on September 16, 1997. 13. Pursuant to State v. Griffin, 83 Haw. 105[, 924 P.2d 1211] (1996), and State v. Yamamoto, 79 Haw. 511[, 904 P.2d 525] (1995), restitution can be a free-standing order remaining in full force and effect beyond the termination of [Defendant's] term of probation in the instant case. 14. Pursuant to Section 706-644(6) of the Hawaii [Hawai`i] Revised Statutes, as amended, and pursuant to dictum (footnote 4) in Griffin, supra, civil judgment can be imposed against [Defendant] in favor of Bank of Hawaii. [Defendant] has already pled GUILTY as charged to Count 1 which is the offense of THEFT IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

  9. State v. Phillips

    138 Haw. 321 (Haw. 2016)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing under art. I, § 7 of the Hawaii Constitution

    Thus, we will not disturb a sentencing court's decisions regarding restitution absent an abuse of discretion. Id.; see alsoState v. Griffin, 83 Hawai'i 105, 108–09, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214–15 (1996) (reviewing the circuit court's award of restitution for abuse of discretion). III.

  10. State v. Plichta

    116 Haw. 200 (Haw. 2007)   Cited 26 times
    Observing that a statute "should not be stretched beyond its terms"

    "the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality." State v. Griffin, 83 Hawai'i 105, 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211, 1214 n. 4 (1996) (quoting State v. Malufau, 80 Hawai'i 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). See also HRS § 1-15(3) (1993) ("Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.").