State v. Kotis

115 Citing cases

  1. Uyeda v. Schermer

    439 P.3d 115 (Haw. 2019)   Cited 23 times

    5 were not met and harassment as therein defined was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Schermer, citing State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 341-42, 984 P.2d 78, 100-01 (1999), also argued that while the district court could take judicial notice of the existence of documents filed in the previous cases, it could not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts in those documents. He conceded, however, that he would be collaterally estopped from relitigating the facts or issues in Case 639.

  2. State v. Gonzalez

    NO. CAAP-18-0000616 (Haw. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2019)

    On appeal, the appellate court's "task is not to determine whether the evidence was 'clear and convincing,' but, rather, whether there was sufficient evidence to enable a person of reasonable caution to arrive at the circuit court's [finding of fact]." State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 345, 984 P.2d 78, 104 (1999). By enacting HRS § 334-161 in 2017, the legislature explicitly provided the trial courts with authority to issue an order permitting the involuntary administration of medication to a criminal defendant.

  3. Perez v. Perez

    NO. CAAP-18-0000029 (Haw. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2020)

    Accordingly, we examine the court's ruling for plain error. See State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 341, 984 P.2d 78, 100 (1999) (citing Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 103(a)(1) and (d) (1993)). See also Hawai'i Family Court Rules Rule 61.

  4. Demarco v. Maui Beach Resort Ltd.

    388 P.3d 52 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016)

    Chun, 106 Hawai‘i at 430, 106 P.3d at 353 (citing Hutch, 75 Haw. at 328, 861 P.2d at 22. "An FOF is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding.") Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai‘i 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 329, 984 P.2d 78, 88 (1999) ). "Substantial evidence" is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Leslie, 91 Hawai‘i at 399, 984 P.2d at 1225 (quoting Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i at 328, 984 P.2d at 87 ).

  5. Demarco v. Maui Beach Resort Ltd. P'ship

    388 P.3d 52 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016)

    Chun, 106 Hawai‘i at 430, 106 P.3d at 353 (citing Hutch, 75 Haw. at 328, 861 P.2d at 22. "An FOF is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding.") Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai‘i 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 329, 984 P.2d 78, 88 (1999) ). "Substantial evidence" is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Leslie, 91 Hawai‘i at 399, 984 P.2d at 1225 (quoting Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i at 328, 984 P.2d at 87 ).

  6. State v. Lawrence

    386 P.3d 476 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    Finding jurisdiction under HRS § 641-11 over a judgment of acquittal and order of commitment in part because "to construe [the statute] to preclude an appeal under the circumstances of case" would be "anomalous" (citing State v. Burgo, 71 Haw. 198, 202, 787 P.2d 221, 223 (1990) )

    based on an insanity defense are appealable orders by exercising appellate jurisdiction over such orders. For example, in State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 984 P.2d 78 (1999), the supreme court exercised appellate jurisdiction and reviewed an order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications to a defendant found incompetent to proceed to trial. In State v. Miller, 84 Hawai'i 269, 933 P.2d 606 (1997), the supreme court reviewed an order denying the motion of a defendant found not guilty based on an insanity defense for conditional release or discharge from custody, and in State v. Burgo, 71 Haw. 198, 787 P.2d 221 (1990), the supreme court reviewed an order revoking the conditional discharge of a defendant found not guilty based on an insanity defense.

  7. Daum v. Webster

    388 P.3d 899 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016)

    " HRE Rule 201(f)."A trial court's sua sponte decision to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact constitutes an exercise of its discretion," State v. Kotis , 91 Hawai‘i 319, 328–29, 984 P.2d 78, 87–88 (1999). In Kotis , the defendant argued that the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of records and files of the case.

  8. State v. Nicol

    403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that HRS § 641-11 authorizes a defendant to appeal in a criminal case from a circuit court order dismissing the case without prejudice

    "When construing a statute, [this court's] foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself." State v. McKnight, 131 Hawai‘i 379, 388, 319 P.3d 298, 307 (2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) ). Additionally, "[t]he legislative history of a statute remains relevant ‘even when the language appears clear upon perfunctory review.’ " State v. Alangcas, 134 Hawai‘i 515, 526, 345 P.3d 181, 192 (2015) (quoting Richardson v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 76 Hawai‘i 46, 68-69, 868 P.2d 1193, 1215-16 (1994) ). "Were this not the case, a court may be unable to adequately discern the underlying policy which the legislature seeks to promulgate and, thus, would be unable to determine if a literal construction would produce an absurd or unjust result, inconsistent with the policies of the statute.

  9. State v. Abdon

    137 Haw. 19 (Haw. 2016)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that, because Hawaii law requires the jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a prosecution is timely, the jury must also determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the statute of limitations was tolled

    This court has noted that "taking judicial notice of the records and files of a case may or may not be proper, depending upon the type of record at issue and the purpose for which it is considered." State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 343, 984 P.2d 78, 102 (1999). Where a trial court seeks to take judicial notice of "its own acts or of the existence of records on file in the same case," a number of other jurisdictions have held that judicial notice under this circumstance is proper.

  10. State v. McKnight

    131 Haw. 379 (Haw. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that an error by the issuing judge resulting in conflicting dates on the face of the warrant did not render a search warrant invalid

    "The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo." State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (citation, brackets, and ellipses omitted). We view HRS § 707–756 as a whole and construe the statute in accordance with the legislature's overall purpose to give each part a sensible and intelligent effect.