State v. Espiritu’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[although the court did instruct the jury as to the elements of an attempted manslaughter defense, Respondent argued in effect that such a special relationship and immediacy were necessary to establish an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation. Obviously such is not the ease. The jury was not disabused of this error. Because Petitioner’s counsel’s objections to these arguments were overruled, the jury would reasonably perceive that the misstatement of the law was not incorrect.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Pasene. · State v. Mainaaupo

2. “It is established that "arguments of counsel which misstate the law are subject to objection and to correction by the court." State v. Mahoe, 89 Hawai`i 284, 290, 972 P.2d 287, 293 (1998) (citing Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 , 110 S. Ct. 1190 , 108 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1990)) (emphasis omitted). Improper statements by [the State] may serve as grounds for vacating a judgment of conviction and remanding the case for a new trial. See State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawai`i 504, 516, 78 P.3d 317, 329 (2003) (holding that prosecutor's comment on defendant's failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendant's substantial rights); State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai`i 405, 415, 984 P.2d 1231, 1240 (1999) (reversing the defendant's conviction because "arguments by the prosecution contrived to stimulate racial prejudice" might have contributed to the conviction). In order to "determine whether reversal is required under [Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure] Rule 52(a) because of improper remarks by a prosecutor which could affect a defendant's right to a fair trial, we apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review," State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawai`i 517, 528, 923 P.2d 934, 945 (App. 1996), cert. denied, 84 Hawai`i 127, 930 P.2d 1015 (1996) (quoting State v. Saka, 79 Hawai`i 293, 301, 901 P.2d 1272, 1280 (App. 1995), cert. denied, 79 Hawai`i 341, 902 P.2d 976 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hoibron, 80 Hawai`i 27, 32 n.12, 904 P.2d 912 , 917 n.12 (1995) (other cita”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Suan · State v. SUAN

3. “Additionally, while the court properly instructed the jury on accomplice liability, that instruction did not cure the prosecutor's misstatements of the law, where no specific curative instruction relating to the misstatements was given.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Underwood. · State v. Souza.