State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Walker’s Application ... requires us to clarify Ruggiero and Kekuewa in the context of Wheeler . The current essential elements that the State must include in an OVUII charge differ from those required in 2007 at the time of the Ruggiero and Kekuewa decisions. Again, post -Wheeler, OVUII charges must now allege the attendant circumstance that the defendant operated a vehicle “on a public way, street, road, or highway.” [[Image here]] Walker’s argument fails to account for Wheeler’s contribution to Hawaii’s OVUII case law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Schwartz v. State.

2. “While Walker correctly characterizes Rug-giero and Kekuewa in his Application, his argument fails to account for more recent developments in OVUII case law. Specifically, under this court’s decision in Wheeler , Walker’s HOVUII charge did not adequately allege the lesser-included offense of OVUII as a first offender pursuant to HRS §§ 291E-61(a)(l) and (b)(1). As such, it would be improper to remand this case for entry of judgment of conviction and sentencing based upon a deficient lesser-included charge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Schwartz v. State.

3. “jurisdictional point.” . Walker found that "where there is a wealth of overwhelming and compelling evidence tending to show the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, ... errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are deemed harmless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Schwartz v. State.