State v. Suka’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, are those cases involving federal and/or state “constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error[.] ” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967). Accord State v. Silva, 78 Hawai'i 115, 121 , 890 P.2d 702, 708 (App.1995) [,] [abrogated on other grounds by Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai'i 226, 231-32 , 900 P.2d 1293, 1298-99 (1995) ] (right to impartial judge). Second, are those cases involving the violation of all other federal and/or state constitutional rights which the appellate court must find to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be deemed harmless. Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 ]; State v. Okumura, 58 Haw. 425, 431 , 570 P.2d 848, 853 (1977); State v. Pokini, 57 Haw. 26, 29 , 548 P.2d 1402, 1405 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963 [ 97 S.Ct. 392 , 50 L.Ed.2d 332 ] (1976); Silva, 78 Hawai'i at 125 , 890 P.2d at 712 . Third, are those eases involving a limited number of rights, not of constitutional magnitude, but the violation of which has been deemed never to be harmless. E.g. State v. Carvalho, 79 Hawai'i 165 , 880 P.2d 217 (App.[1994]), cert. granted, 77 Hawai'i 373, 884 P.2d 1149 (1994), cert. dismissed, 78 Hawai'i 474 , 896 P.2d 930 (1995) (peremptory challenges). Finally, there are those errors not of constitutional magnitude which may be deemed harmless unless the violation substantially affected the verdict or outcome of the case. Kottea”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cramer

2. “1. The "never harmless error” standard applies to the category of errors which involve constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error. Such a case would be the right to an impartial judge. 2. The "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applies to the category of errors which involve the violation of all other federal and/or state constitutional rights. 3. The “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard also applies to the category of errors involving a limited number of non-constitutional rights such as the use of preemp-tory challenges. 4. The "harmless error” standard applies to the category of errors which are not of constitutional magnitude and which may be deemed harmless unless the violation substantially affected the verdict or outcome of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Chun

3. “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,”

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