State v. Cabrera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading. [E]rroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial. [E]n'or 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. 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.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Valentine · State v. Sua

2. ““[T]he interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” ... Arceo, 84 Hawai'i [at] 10, 928 P.2d [at] 852 ... (quoting State v. Camara, 81 Hawai'i 324, 329 , 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations omitted)). See also State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i 8, 18 , 904 P.2d 893, 903 (1995); State v. Higa, 79 Hawai'i 1, 3 , 897 P.2d 928, 930 , ... (1995); State v. Nakata, 76 Hawai'i 360, 365 , 878 P.2d 699, 704 , ... (1994).... Gray v. Administrative Director of the Court, 84 Hawai'i 138, 144 , 931 P.2d 580, 586 (1997) (some brackets added and some in original). See also State v. Soto, 84 Hawai'i 229, 236 , 933 P.2d 66, 73 (1997). Furthermore, our statutory construction is guided by established rules: When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. When there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an ambiguity exists.... In construing an ambiguous statute, “[t]he meaning of the ambiguous words may be sought by examining the context, with which the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be compared, in order to ascertain their true meaning.” HRS § 1-15(1) [ (1993) ]. Moreover, the courts may resort to extrinsic aid”

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

3. “Elements of an offense. The elements of an offense are such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the statute of limitations, lack of venue, or lack of jurisdiction).”

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