State v. Jones

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Shon

    47 Haw. 158 (Haw. 1963)   Cited 22 times

    While Antonio was the actual perpetrator of the robbery, all the defendants were charged as principals pursuant to the provisions of R.L.H. 1955, ยงยง 252-1 and 252-4. See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 266, 365 P.2d 460, 470. No challenge has been made to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction but we think a resume of the facts will facilitate consideration of the errors assigned, particularly appellant's fifth specification of error.

  2. State v. Ornellas

    375 P.2d 1 (Haw. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    No error is assigned with reference to the petit jury. The legal issue raised in this case anent the constitution of the grand jury and the alleged irregular manner of its selection by the jury commission is parallel to that involved in the case of State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 365 P.2d 460. However, in the instant case the State squarely raises the issue as to the applicability of the provisions of R.L.H. 1955, ยง 221-24, and advances the argument that defendant had failed, in a timely manner, to challenge the grand jury which indicted her. The statute in question specifically provides: "Before the grand jury is sworn, the prosecuting officer, or any person held to answer a charge for a criminal offense may challenge the panel, or an individual juror for cause to be assigned to the court.

  3. State v. Pasene

    439 P.3d 864 (Haw. 2019)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that prosecutorial misconduct may provide grounds for a new trial if the prosecutor's actions denied the defendant a fair trial

    Pursuant to Hawaiโ€˜i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 24(c), it is within the trial courtโ€™s discretion to "replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties." See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961) ("The rule is universally recognized that the matter of excusing trial jurors lies in the discretion of the trial judge."). Pasene asked the circuit court to excuse Juror No. 1, arguing that the jurorโ€™s interaction with Officer Le demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to follow the circuit courtโ€™s instructions.

  4. State v. Mara

    98 Haw. 1 (Haw. 2002)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that the prosecutor's remark was harmless after considering the "strength of the overall evidence" against the defendant and holding that the prosecutor's improper comment "[did] not constitute reversible error"

    Consistent with this view, we note that, generally, the circuit courts are vested with considerable discretion in the matter of excusing persons from jury service. See State v. Crisostomo, 94 Haw. 282, 287, 12 P.3d 873, 878 (2000) (citing State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961)). Absent an abuse of that discretion, the judge's decision will not be disturbed. Crisostomo, 94 Hawaii at 287, 12 P.3d at 878.

  5. State v. Crisostomo

    94 Haw. 282 (Haw. 2000)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that any error in admitting alleged hearsay statements was harmless where such statements were merely cumulative of other evidence properly admitted at trial

    A trial court's determination to excuse a juror is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961). This court has also stated, however, that "[u]nless it patently appears that such discretion has been abused and that the defendant has not been given a fair trial resulting from the abuse, an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion."

  6. State v. Yoshino

    45 Haw. 640 (Haw. 1962)   Cited 7 times

    Territory v. Blackman, 32 Haw. 460, 464; State v. Yoshida, 45 Haw. 50, 361 P.2d 1032. See also Territory v. Ebarra, 39 Haw. 488, 491; Territory v. Bollianday, 39 Haw. 590; State v. Carvelo, 45 Haw. 16, 361 P.2d 45; State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 365 P.2d 460, relating to persons present who are deemed principals under R.L.H. 1955, ยง 252-1. Since the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury, we find without merit the specifications of error asserting that a judgment of acquittal should have been ordered entered.

  7. State v. Pasene

    NO. CAAP-15-0000156 (Haw. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2018)

    We review a trial court's decision regarding whether to excuse a juror for abuse of discretion. See State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 262, 365 P.2d 460, 468 (1961). We conclude under the circumstances presented that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pasene's request to excuse the juror.