State v. Young

20 Citing cases

  1. Gold Coast Neighborhood Ass'n v. State

    403 P.3d 214 (Haw. 2017)   Cited 12 times
    Denying claim for attorneys fees against State under private attorney general doctrine where plaintiff sought declaratory relief over State’s responsibility to maintain seawall

    " HRS § 1-16 (1993). State v. Young, 107 Hawai'i 36, 39-40, 109 P.3d 677, 680-81 (2005). IV. DISCUSSION

  2. Stout v. Bd. of Trs. of the Employees' Ret. Sys.

    398 P.3d 766 (Haw. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    "Laws in pari materia , or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called upon in aid to explain what is doubtful in another." State v. Young , 107 Hawai'i 36, 40, 109 P.3d 677, 681 (2005) (quoting State v. Kaua , 102 Hawai'i 1, 8, 72 P.3d 473, 480 (2003) ); see also State v. Sullivan , 97 Hawai'i 259, 262, 36 P.3d 803, 806 (2001) ("And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose."). HRS § 88-79, "Service-connected disability retirement," provides:

  3. State v. Paris

    138 Hawaii 254 (Haw. 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that a jury instruction that "finds no basis in the statutory definition of ‘custody,’ " and was inconsistent with another instruction stating the statutory definition of custody, was erroneous, inconsistent and misleading

    "Whether an indictment or complaint sets forth all the essential elements of a charged offense is a question of law, which [the appellate court reviews] under the de novo, or right/wrong, standard." State v. Young, 107 Hawai‘i 36, 39, 109 P.3d 677, 680 (2005) (internal quotation marks, citation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

  4. State v. Fuller

    169 N.H. 154 (N.H. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    For this reason, unlike in Carpentino, in which the defendant had been tried, convicted, and sentenced before the relevant amendment took effect, see Carpentino, 166 N.H. at 11–12, 85 A.3d 906, the savings statute does not apply to the instant case because the prosecution was not yet pending on July 1, 2015. Accord State v. Young, 109 P.3d 677, 681 (Haw.2005) (noting that the prosecutor conceded that the case did not qualify as a pending prosecution within the meaning of Hawaii's savings statute because the indictment was filed after the criminal statute that the defendant allegedly violated had been repealed); State v. Souza, 456 A.2d 775, 778, 781 (R.I.1983) (holding that "[t]he savings statute does not apply since the action was not pending when the statute was repealed" when repeal occurred before the defendant was charged by information). We recognize that, even in circumstances where we did not apply the savings statute, we have declined to apply amendments that took effect before a defendant was indicted when the amendment was substantive or there were other factors that demonstrated that the legislature did not intend for the amendment to apply retroactively.

  5. State v. Bowman

    137 Hawaii 398 (Haw. 2016)   Cited 12 times

    Laws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called upon in aid to explain what is doubtful in another.State v. Young, 107 Hawai‘i 36, 39–40, 109 P.3d 677, 680–81 (2005) (internal quotation marks, citations, brackets, and ellipses in original omitted; formatting altered) (quoting State v. Kaua, 102 Hawai‘i 1, 8, 72 P.3d 473, 480 (2003) ).B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

  6. State v. Sorino

    118 P.3d 645 (Haw. 2005)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that warning that “this plea may have a bearing on whatever relationship you have with the Immigration and Naturalization Service” completely failed to specify consequences of plea as required by statute

    . . .State v. Young, 107 Hawai`i 36, 39-40, 109 P.3d 677, 680-81 (2005) (quoting State v. Kaua, 102 Hawai`i 1, 7-8, 72 P.3d 473, 479-480 (2003) (quoting State v. Rauch, 94 Hawai`i 315, 322-23, 13 P.3d 324, 331-32 (2000) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai`i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai`i 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai`i 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Hawai`i 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai`i 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998)))))))) (emphasis added). The lynchpin of the ICA's lead opinion lies in the following reasoning: Notwithstanding that "the circuit court did not recite [the HRS § 802E-2] advisement orally to Sorino," because "Sorino did state in open court, in response to an inquiry from the circuit court, that he had read [the] advisement with his attorney and understood it," "under the standard set forth in HRS § 802E-3, [ see supra note 2,] Sorino's moti

  7. State v. Higheagle

    150 Haw. 157 (Haw. Ct. App. 2021)

    Thus, when a person under arrest for OVUII exercises his or her right to refuse to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test, the language of HRS § 291E-15 is plain—"none shall be given." See State v. Young, 107 Hawai‘i 36, 39, 109 P.3d 677, 680 (2005) (providing that "[w]hen construing a statute, our 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"). The plain language of HRS § 291E-15 also makes clear that the only exception to "none shall be given" is if there was a "collision resulting in injury to or the death of any person" pursuant to HRS § 291E-21 (2020).

  8. State v. Manwell

    NO. CAAP-16-0000360 (Haw. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2019)

    "Whether an indictment or complaint sets forth all the essential elements of a charged offense is a question of law, which [the appellate court reviews] under the de novo, or right/wrong, standard." State v. Young, 107 Hawai'i 36, 39, 109 P.3d 677, 680 (2005) (citation, internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). "The elements of an offense are such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) negative a defense[.]"

  9. State v. Hufanga

    NO. CAAP-17-0000737 (Haw. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2019)

    "Whether an indictment or complaint sets forth all the essential elements of a charged offense is a question of law, which [the appellate court reviews] under the de novo, or right/wrong, standard." State v. Young, 107 Hawai'i 36, 39, 109 P.3d 677, 680 (2005) (internal quotation marks, citation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(ii), Robbery in the first degree, states in relevant part:

  10. State v. Jones

    NO. CAAP-15-0000559 (Haw. Ct. App. May. 22, 2018)

    Whether a charge sets forth all the essential elements of the offense is a question of law reviewed by the appellate courts de novo. State v. Young, 107 Hawai'i 36, 39, 109 P.3d 677, 680 (2005). Generally, "[w]here the statute sets forth with reasonable clarity all essential elements of the crime intended to be punished, and fully defines the offense in unmistakable terms readily comprehensible to persons of common understanding, a charge drawn in the language of the statute is sufficient."