State v. Kotis

3 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. State v. Bohannon

    102 Haw. 228 (Haw. 2003)   Cited 84 times
    In Bohannon, the Hawai'i Supreme Court vacated the lower court's suppression of evidence, determining there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances.

    HRS § 1-16 (1993).State v. Rauch, 94 Haw. 315, 322-23, 13 P.3d 324, 331-32 (2000) (quotingState v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Haw. 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Haw. 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Haw. 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quotingKorean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Haw. 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998)))))). III. DISCUSSION

  3. State v. Barros

    98 Haw. 337 (Haw. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that an officer was not prohibited under the constitution from requesting a warrant check in a traffic stop when the check did not prolong the length of time needed to issue the traffic citation

    Insofar, then, as HRS § 803-6(b) may conflict with § 291C-165, the latter, relating as it does to traffic infractions, would control in a jaywalking case, it being the more specific statute of the two with respect to the violation involved here. See State v. Kotis, 91 Hawaii 319, 330, 984 P.2d 78, 89,reconsideration denied, 1999 Haw. LEXIS 306 (1999); Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawaii 46, 53, 961 P.2d 611, 618 (1998); State v. Vallesteros, 84 Hawaii 295, 303, 933 P.2d 632, 640, reconsideration denied, 84 Hawaii 496, 936 P.2d 191 (1997); Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawaii 46, 55, 868 P.2d 1193, 1202, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawaii 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994), judgment aff'd, 124 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[W]here there is a 'plainly irreconcilable' conflict between a general and a specific statute concerning the same subject matter, the specific will be favored.").