State v. Lee

32 Citing cases

  1. State v. Arceo

    84 Haw. 1 (Haw. 1996)   Cited 327 times
    Noting that "we review questions of constitutional law 'by exercising our own independent constitutional judgment'" (quoting Trainor, 83 Hawai'i at 255, 925 P.2d at 823, and Lee 83 Hawai'i at 273, 925 P.2d at 1097)

    We answer questions of constitutional law "by exercising our own independent constitutional judgment based on the facts of the case." State v. Trainor, 83 Haw. 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Lee, 83 Haw. 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097 (1996) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the "right/wrong" standard.

  2. State v. Fields

    115 Haw. 503 (Haw. 2007)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that “a trial court's admission of a prior out-of-court statement does not violate the Hawai‘i Constitution's confrontation clause where the declarant appears at trial and the accused is afforded a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the declarant about the subject matter of that statement”

    The "unavailability" paradigm has alternatively been referred to as the "rule of necessity." See State v. Lee, 83 Hawai'i 267, 275, 925 P.2d 1091, 1100 (1996) ("First, in conformance with the Framers' preference for face to face confrontation, the [confrontation clause] establishes a rule of necessity. In the usual case (including cases where prior cross-examination has occurred), the prosecution must either produce, or demonstrate the unavailability of, the declarant whose statement it wishes to use against the defendant.") (Citing Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65, 100 S.Ct. 2531.)

  3. State v. Sua

    92 Haw. 61 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that the defendant waived the issue of whether certain prior inconsistent statements were properly recorded pursuant to HRE Rule 802.1(C) because the defendant failed to object at trial on that ground, thereby rendering those statements admissible

    Crosby v. State Dep't of Budget Fin., 76 Haw. 332, 341, 876 P.2d 1300, 1309 (1994) (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 150 n. 10, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1692 n. 10, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1081, 115 S.Ct. 731, 130 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995).State v. Lee, 83 Haw. 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097 (1996). Whether the prosecution has made a showing that a statement bears "adequate indicia of reliability" — for the purposes of satisfying the confrontation clauses of the United States and Hawaii Constitutions — is, under one of two available modes of analysis, a question of law, involving a determination whether the statement falls within a "firmly rooted hearsay exception."

  4. State v. Trainor

    83 Haw. 250 (Haw. 1996)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that law enforcement may not initiate investigative stops based solely on the conclusion that the suspect's characteristics and behaviors match a "drug courier profile," in part because the profile described "an enormous set of presumably innocent travelers"

    Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Lee, 83 Haw. 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, ___ (Haw. 1996); State v. Ganal, 81 Haw. 358, 368, 917 P.2d 370, 380 (1996); Tachibana v. State, 79 Haw. 226, 231, 900 P.2d 1293, 1298 (1995). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left "with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

  5. State v. Soto

    84 Haw. 229 (Haw. 1997)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that communications between a criminal defendant and her counsel knowingly conducted in a public hallway of the circuit courthouse in the presence of a confidential informant who was not a member of the defense team were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because they were not "confidential"

    We answer questions of constitutional law "'by exercising our own independent constitutional judgment based on the facts of the case.'" State v. Trainor, 83 Haw. 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996) (quoting State v. Lee, 83 Haw. 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097 (1996)). Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the "right/wrong" standard.

  6. State v. Gomes

    93 Haw. 13 (Haw. 2000)   Cited 18 times

    We answer questions of constitutional law "by exercising our own independent judgment based on the facts of the case." State v. Trainor, 83 Haw. 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Lee, 83 Haw. 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097 (1996) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the "right/wrong" standard.

  7. State v. Klinge

    92 Haw. 577 (Haw. 2000)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that strength of the evidence weighed against the defendant where the defendant's case hinged on his own testimony and the State's case was supported by photographs and independent witnesses

    We review questions of constitutional law "by exercising our own independent constitutional judgment based on the facts of the case." State v. Rogan, 91 Haw. 405, 411, 984 P.2d 1231, 1237 (1999) (quoting State v. Arceo, 84 Haw. 1, 11, 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (quoting State v. Trainor, 83 Haw. 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996), and State v. Lee, 83 Haw. 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097 (1996)). Accordingly, we review questions of constitutional law de novo under the "right/wrong" standard.

  8. State v. Kotis

    91 Haw. 319 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 115 times
    Holding that the defendant "had the opportunity to raise the issue [(now challenged on appeal)] . . . in the circuit court, but he did not do so. Inasmuch as he is the party alleging error, it was his burden to raise the issue, and any ambiguity in the circuit court's d i n g may therefore be attributed to him"

    . . . We answer questions of constitutional law "by exercising our own independent constitutional judgment based on the facts of the case." State v. Trainor, 83 Haw. 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Lee, 83 Haw. 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097 (1996) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the "right/wrong" standard.

  9. State v. Fergerstrom

    106 Haw. 43 (Haw. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that "the State of Hawai'i was, on February 9, 2002, and is now, a lawful government" and "[p]ersons claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and not of the State of Hawai'i are not exempt from the laws of the State of Hawai'i"

    If only the judge is permitted to decide the relevant and material facts, the judge would decide the applicable constitutional law, find the relevant and material facts, apply the relevant constitutional law to the relevant and material facts, and decide the constitutional law question without the involvement of the jury. In State v. Lee, 83 Hawai'i 267, 925 P.2d 1091 (1996), a jury found the defendant guilty of attempted murder in the second degree. On appeal, the Hawai'i Supreme Court concluded, in relevant part, as follows:

  10. State v. Lebrick

    334 Conn. 492 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 12 times
    In Lebrick, we held that "Stephenson's testimony was admissible, even if predicated in material part on testimonial hearsay, as long as the underlying hearsay was not admitted into evidence or otherwise put before the jury for the truth of the matter asserted."

    In cases in which "a ‘key’ or ‘crucial’ witness' testimony is involved" and in which "the consequences of a conviction based on the absent witness' testimony are grave," "[c]onfrontation [c]lause concerns are heightened and courts insist on more diligent efforts by the prosecution ...." Id. ; see also United States v. Lynch , supra, 499 F.2d at 1023–24 (holding that government's efforts to find sole eyewitness to murder were not "as vigorous" as they would have been in absence of witness' prior testimony, even though witness was served with subpoena and detectives interrogated her grandmother and went to apartment at which she allegedly could be found multiple times); Brooks v. United States , supra, 39 A.3d at 884 ("[t]he government's obligation to take steps to produce the witness ha[s] to correspond to the importance of the witness and the potential prejudice to the defendant if she [does] not testify"); State v. Lee , 83 Haw. 267, 279–80, 925 P.2d 1091 (1996) (state's "lackluster efforts" to find crucial witnesses to murder were insufficient to establish their unavailability under confrontation clause because, among other things, state failed to search for their "driver's license or motor vehicle registration" or show "any follow-up" after visit to one witness' last known address); State v. Maben , 132 N.J. 487, 503–504, 626 A.2d 63 (1993) (The state's "minimal search" efforts were insufficient to establish the unavailability of the child sexual assault victim because "[t]he [s]tate [neither] asked the post office whether the family had left a forwarding address, nor [asked] neighbors for the names of family members who might know of the family's location.