State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably State v. Arceo (1996), State v. Sawyer (1998)
26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Crane v. Kentucky · State v. Kelekolio · Pele Defense Fund v. Paty · State v. Batson · State v. Pinero
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ e]rror is not to be viewed in isolation and considered purely in the abstract. It must be examined in the light of the entire proceedings and given the effect which the whole record shows it to be entitled. In that context, the real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that error may have contributed to conviction. State v. Heard, 64 Haw. 193, 194 , 638 P.2d 307, 308 (1981) (citations omitted). If there is such a reasonable possibility in a criminal case, then the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgment of conviction on which it may have been based must be set aside. See Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 402-03 [ 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1892-93 , 114 L.Ed.2d 432 ] ... (1991)[.] Arceo, 84 Hawai'i at 11-12, 928 P.2d at 853-54 (quoting State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 32 , 904 P.2d 912, 917 , reconsideration denied 80 Hawai'i 187 , 907 P.2d 773 (1995) (some citations omitted) (brackets in original) (emphasis deleted)); see also State v. Loa, 83 Hawai'i 335, 350 , 926 P.2d 1258, 1273 (1996); State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai'i 304, 310-11 , 922 P.2d 358, 364-65 (1996).”
13 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Klinge · State v. Vanstory“[ B]oth section 706-662(5) and 706-660.2 delineate, as an aggravating circumstance, infliction of serious or substantial bodily injuries to a victim who is: (1) sixty years of age or older; (2) blind, paraplegic, or quadriplegic; or (3) eight years of age or younger- [These] subsections delineate the two options available to the sentencing court once it has found that the defendant is within the class of offenders to which those subsections apply: (1) if the court thereafter finds that an extended term is necessary for the protection of the public, sentence is imposed pursuant to section 706-662(5); but (2) if the court thereafter finds that an extended term of imprisonment is not necessary for the protection of the public, it must impose a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment pursuant to HRS § 706-660.2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tafoya“A convicted defendant may be subject to an extended term of imprisonment under section 706-661, if the convicted defendant satisfies one or more of the following criteria: [[Image here]] (5) The defendant is an offender against the elder, handicapped, or minor under the age of eight whose imprisonment for an extended term is necessary for the protection of the public. The court shall not make this finding unless: [[Image here]] (b) The defendant, in the course of committing or attempting to commit the crime, inflicts serious or substantial bodily injury upon a person who is: (i) Sixty years of age or older; ... and (c) Such disability is known or reasonably should be known to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tafoya
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.