State v. Simpson

35 Citing cases

  1. State v. McQueen

    No. CAAP-20-0000496 (Haw. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2022)

    The trial court has the authority to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecutor's opening statement if it is clear that the prosecution's argument will fail regardless of other evidence that may be introduced. State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 368, 641 P.2d 320, 323-24 (1982). However, "[a]n opening statement merely provides an opportunity for counsel to advise and outline for the jury the facts and questions in the matter before them[;] . . . [it] is not evidence."

  2. State v. Williams

    NO. CAAP-17-0000434 (Haw. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2018)

    Proof of bodily injury to Kasman was made more difficult by the fact that Kasman died before he could testify at trial. It is well-settled, however, that "guilt may be proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of reasonable inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence[,]" Pone, 78 Hawai'i at 273, 892 P.2d at 466 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n.7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n.7 (1982)), and that the State may resort to such evidence when the complaining witness is deceased. Cf. State v. Kekona, 120 Hawai'i 420, 438-41, 209 P.3d 1234, 1252-55 (App. 2009) (discussing cases in which it was appropriate to admit circumstantial evidence of a deceased victim).

  3. State v. Pone

    78 Haw. 262 (Haw. 1995)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that the intentional mind state set forth in a fourth degree criminal property damage statute applied to each of its elements, because "no contrary purpose `plainly appears' on the face of the statute" (quoting HRS § 702-207)

    Viewed in this manner, it becomes apparent that HRE 306(a) "presumptions against the accused" are no more than legislatively or judicially enshrined and constitutionally circumscribed corollaries to the proposition, "well settled in this jurisdiction[,] that guilt may be proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of reasonable inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence." State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982) (emphasis added). See also State v. Bright, 64 Haw. 226, 228, 638 P.2d 330, 332 (1981) (per curiam); State v. O'Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 528-29, 616 P.2d 1383, 1391 (1980); State v. Murphy, 59 Haw. 1, 19, 575 P.2d 448, 460 (1978).

  4. State v. Emmsley

    3 Haw. App. 459 (Haw. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 14 times

    We are aware that the "waiver doctrine" has been subjected to criticism, and some jurisdictions have fashioned exceptions or limitations to its application to ameliorate its apparently harsh effect. See State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 641 P.2d 320 (1982). While not specifically adopting the waiver doctrine, our supreme court in Simpson, 64 Haw. at 371, 641 P.2d at 325, noted that it serves an important function in the criminal justice system in that it requires the defendant, if he presents evidence after denial of his motion, to assume the risk that his evidence may in fact be favorable to the government.

  5. State v. Sprattling

    99 Haw. 312 (Haw. 2002)   Cited 66 times
    Upholding an oral accusation which omitted the modifier "bodily" from a charge of assault in the third degree

    "[P]roof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient. . . . Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 536-37 (1982) (citations omitted); see also State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982). State v. Mitsuda, 86 Hawai`i 37, 44, 947 P.2d 349, 356, reconsideration denied (1997) (quoting State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934 (1992)) (emphasis added).

  6. State v. Jenkins

    93 Haw. 87 (Haw. 2000)   Cited 214 times
    Holding that possession is a prosecutable act under HRS § 702–202

    [g]iven the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, "[w]e have consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient. . . . Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 536-37 (1982) (citations omitted); see also State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982). State v. Mitsuda, 86 Haw. 37, 44, 947 P.2d 349, 356, reconsideration denied (1997) (quoting State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934 (1992)) (emphasis added).

  7. State v. Staley

    91 Haw. 275 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 83 times
    Holding it was plain error for trial court to fail to engage defendant in a colloquy prior to accepting defendant's waiver of fundamental right to testify

    [g]iven the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, "[w]e have consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient. . . . Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 536-37 (1982) (citations omitted); see also State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982). State v. Mitsuda, 86 Haw. 37, 44, 947 P.2d 349, 356 (1997) (quoting State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992) (footnote omitted)) (brackets and ellipsis points in original).

  8. State v. Stocker

    90 Haw. 85 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 118 times
    Recognizing "substantial evidence that, after becoming angry and 'yelling' at Shane, Stocker slapped him in the face" and, based thereon, holding "that the family court could reasonably have inferred that Stocker intended his conduct to 'annoy' or 'alarm' Shane"

    [g]iven the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, "[w]e have consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient. . . . Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 536-37 (1982) (citations omitted); see also State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982).State v. Mitsuda, 86 Haw. 37, 44, 947 P.2d 349, 356 (1997) (quoting State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992) (footnote omitted)) (brackets and ellipsis points in original).

  9. State v. Lee

    90 Haw. 130 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that with respect to the offense of driving without insurance, to require the State to disprove the exception for self-insurance, which is likely to be quite rare, in every case would be absurd and would defeat the Legislature's purpose by increasing the difficulty of proving lack of coverage

    [G]iven the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, "[w]e have consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient. . . . Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 536-37 (1982) (citations omitted); see also State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982). State v. Mitsuda, 86 Haw. 37, 44, 947 P.2d 349, 356 (1996) (quoting State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992) (footnote omitted)) (some brackets in original and some added).

  10. State v. Mitsuda

    86 Haw. 37 (Haw. 1997)   Cited 44 times

    [g]iven the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, "[w]e have consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient. . . . Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 536-37 (1982) (citations omitted); see also State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982).State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992) (footnote omitted).