9 Haw. App. 130 - State v. Ofa’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2022
18 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 Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · White v. Illinois · Lombard v. Marcera · United States v. Inadi
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Log falls within the HRE Rule 803(b)(8)(B) exception. It constitutes a record or report of a public agency, the HPD [Honolulu Police Department]. It includes matters observed and reported by a HPD operator-supervisor who tested the Intoxilyzer for accuracy as required by provisions of the Rules. The only issue is whether the Log is excludable from the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule as 'matters observed by . . . law enforcement personnel' in a criminal case. "Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed.R.Evid.) 803(8)(B)is identical to HRE Rule 803(b)(8)(B). In construing the exclusion provision of Fed.R.Evid. 803 (8)(B), the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit took a very restrictive view, holding that " 'in criminal cases reports of public agencies setting forth matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel and reports of public agencies setting forth factual findings resulting from investigations made pursuant to authority granted by law cannot satisfy the standards of any hearsay exceptions if those reports are sought to be introduced against the accused.' " United States v. Oates , 560 F.2d 45 , 84 (2d Cir. 1977). The Oates restrictive view has been criticized. See 4 J. Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence § 803(8)[04] (1991). "The Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit concluded that 'the exclusionary provisions of Rule 803(8)(B) were intended to apply to observations made by law enforcement officials at the scene of a c”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Log falls within the HRE Rule 803(b)(8)(B) exception. It constitutes a record or report of a public agency, the HPD [Honolulu Police Department]. It includes matters observed and reported by a HPD operator-supervisor who tested the Intoxilyzer for accuracy as required by provisions of the Rules. The only issue is whether the Log is excludable from the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule as 'matters observed by . . . law enforcement personnel' in a criminal case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We opt to follow the rationale in the Orozco, Wilmer , and DeWater cases. Clearly, [the inspecting officer's] report in the Log of his testing of the Intoxilyzer for accuracy on the specified dates constituted a record of routine, nonadversarial matters made in a nonadversarial setting. See State v. Smith , 66 Or. App. 703 , 707 , 675 P.2d 510 , 512 (1984) (certificates of breathalyzer inspections relate to 'the routine function of testing breathalyzer equipment to insure that it gives accurate readings).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.