State v. Miller

21 Citing cases

  1. State v. D.B.

    No. CAAP-23-0000242 (Haw. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2024)

    D.B. had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was free from mental illness and dangerous propensities, or that he may safely be released on the conditions applied for. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 704-415(2) (2014); see State v. Miller, 84 Hawai'i 269, 275, 933 P.2d 606, 612 (1997). The circuit court decides whether the evidence establishes the requisite conditions for release. Id. at 279, 933 P.2d at 616.

  2. Reiter v. State

    2001 WY 116 (Wyo. 2001)   Cited 31 times
    Concluding that, because criminal acquittee ''has placed his mental illness at issue, proved it by a preponderance of the evidence, and is therefore deemed to have committed a criminal act,'' acquittee is dissimilar to civil committee for equal protection purposes

    [¶ 24] For these reasons, we conclude that requiring a "criminal acquittee" to rebut the inference or presumption of continuing mental illness and dangerousness by a preponderance of the evidence in a Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-306(f) discharge proceeding does not violate a "criminal acquittee's" state or federal due process guarantees. See also Hartman v. Summers, 878 F. Supp. 1335, 1341-44 (C.D.Cal. 1995), aff'd, 120 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 1997); People v. Parrish, 879 P.2d 453, 457 (Colo.App. 1994); Hearne v. United States, 631 A.2d 52, 53-54 (D.C. 1993); Nagel v. State, 262 Ga. 888, 427 S.E.2d 490, 491-92 (1993), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1006 (1999); State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 933 P.2d 606, 610-12 (1997); Green v. Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 750 A.2d 1265, 1270-72 (Me. 2000); State v. Tooley, 875 S.W.2d 110, 112-14 (Mo. 1994); and State v. Platt, 143 Wn.2d 242, 19 P.3d 412, 415-17 (2001). Equal Protection

  3. 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"

    . Cf. State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 275, 933 P.2d 606, 612 (rejecting a due process challenge to a statute placing the burden, by preponderance of the evidence, upon the defendant to demonstrate recovery sufficient to justify release from commitment after an acquittal by reason of insanity), reconsideration denied, 84 Haw. 496, 936 P.2d 191 (1997).

  4. State v. Ard

    337 P.3d 54 (Haw. Ct. App. 2014)

    State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Mo.App. W.D .1995) (citing State v. Ross, 795 S.W.2d 648, 650 ( Mo.App.1990 )). 84 Hawai‘i 269, 278–79, 933 P.2d 606, 615–16 (1997). Here, although there were conflicting opinions and testimony, there was substantial evidence to support the Circuit Court's determination that Ard continued to suffer from a mental disease and that he could not be released without danger to himself or others.

  5. In the Matter of Doe

    102 Haw. 528 (Haw. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that mental illness alone is insufficient to demonstrate imminent and substantial dangerousness

    In State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 933 P.2d 606 (1997), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that HRS § 704-411(4) (1993), which places the burden on an insanity acquittee to establish his or her fitness to be released from a psychiatric facility by a preponderance of the evidence, did not violate due process. Id. at 275, 933 P.2d at 612.

  6. Honolulu Weekly, Inc. v. Harris

    298 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that an ordinance requiring distribution of publications from specified newsracks based on whether or not they charge their readers is content-neutral because "the city targeted the manner in which [they are] distributed, not the content of [their] message"

    Id. Equal Protection is analyzed similarly under the United States and Hawaii Constitutions. See State v. Miller, 84 Hawai`i 269, 933 P.2d 606, 613 (1997). That Honolulu Weekly is similarly situated to the charging publications subject to Article 15 is obvious.

  7. Honolulu Weekly, Inc. v. Harris

    No. 01-15854 (9th Cir. May. 7, 2002)

    10Equal Protection is analyzed similarly under the United States and Hawaii Constitutions.See State v. Miller, 933 P.2d 606, 613 (Haw. 1997). Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, we begin our analysis by determining the proper level of scrutiny to apply for review.

  8. State v. Nicol

    140 Haw. 482 (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

    In considering whether his appeal was permissible under HRS § 641-11, the ICA observed several instances in which this court had “implicitly held” that orders regarding involuntary treatment and medication were “appealable orders.” Id. at 199-200 , 386 P.3d at 483-84 (citing Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319 , 984 P.2d 78 (appeal of a pretrial involuntary order of medication); State v. Miller, 84 Hawai'i 269 , 933 P.2d 606 (1997) (appeal of an order denying petition for conditional release following acquittal on the ground of mental disease or disorder and commitment to state custody); State v. Burgo, 71 Haw. 198 , 787 P.2d 221 (1990) (appeal of an order revoking grant of conditional release following acquittal and commitment to state custody)). The Lawrence court additionally considered that a defendant found not guilty based on an insanity defense who was committed to the custody of the State may be subject to deprivation of liberty “for a prolonged, and indeed an indefinite, period of time.”

  9. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe

    109 Haw. 240 (Haw. 2005)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the obligation to comply with a child support order did not violate the father's Thirteenth Amendment rights

    However, equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, but it does require that a distinction made have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.Miller, 84 Hawai`i 269, 276, 933 P.2d 606, 613 (1997) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "Whenever a denial of equal protection of the laws is alleged, as a rule our initial inquiry has been whether the legislation in question should be subjected to `strict scrutiny' or to a `rational basis' test."

  10. State v. Miller

    23445 (Haw. May. 13, 2004)

    Therefore, the summary disposition order should read: State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 933 P.2d 606 (1997); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the court is directed to incorporate the foregoing change in the original summary disposition order.