State v. Lui’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of homicide is permitted to introduce evidence of the deceased’s violent or aggressive character either to demonstrate the reasonableness of his [or her] apprehension of immediate danger or to show that the decedent was the aggressor. And, where character evidence is offered to show the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension, he [or she] must lay a foundation, prior to the admission of the evidence, that he [or she] knew at the time of the homicide of the deceased’s reputation or of the specific acts of violence committed. This foundation is required because the evidence is probative of the defendant’s state of mind, showing his [or her] belief or corroborating his [or her] knowledge as to the deceased’s character and tending to prove that he [or she] acted as a reasonably prudent person would under similar beliefs and circumstances. But, the foundation is not required where the factual issue is to determine the aggressor. Proof of the deceased’s violent and turbulent character in this situation is circumstantial evidence of the likelihood of his [or her] being the aggressor and of the absence of provocation on the part of the defendant. Although Hawaii’s laws on justification supersede the common law defense of self-defense, nevertheless, the common law rules on character evidence are applicable. Deceased’s conviction record was properly excluded. Absent the required foundation that appellant knew of each of the specifi”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Maddox · State v. Kekona

2. “to show that the decedent was the aggressor.”

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

3. ““ ‘ * * * [P]roof of the deceased’s violent and turbulent character in this situation is circumstantial evidence of the likelihood of his being the aggressor.’ ” Id. 666 P.2d at 602 , quoting from State v. Lui, 61 Hawaii 328 , 603 P.2d 151, 154 (1979).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Braley v. State