State v. Viernes’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2020
12 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 Dan v. State · State v. Vance · State v. Park · State v. Reed · State v. Cabrera
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The court may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the .conduct alleged and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct: [[Image here]] (b) [d]id not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction[.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ijnasmuch as the .001 grams of methamphetamine was infinitesimal and was neither useable nor saleable, it could not engender any abuse or social harm. As such, Viernes’s possession of the .001 grams of methamphetamine did not threaten the harm sought to be prevented by HRS § 712-1243. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that .001 grams of methamphetamine was de minimis pursuant to HRS § 702-236.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. On July 3, 1999, Honolulu Police Officer Clayton Saito (hereinafter Officer Saito) (w]as assigned to the District 1 Bicycle Detail. 2. At approximately 17:08 hours, Officer Saito was riding his police bicycle in full uniform in the kokohead direction on North Pau-ahi Street. 3. From approximately fifteen (15) feet away, Officer Saito observed Defendant standing hunched over in the recessed doorway to the ewa side of 152 North Pauahi Street. 4. Defendant was faced in the mauka direction with his back facing North Pauahi Street. 5. Based on Officer Saito’s familiarity with the area, and knowledge that the doorway was commonly used for illicit drug use, he rode past Defendant. 6. Officer Saito observed Defendant from a distance of approximately two (2) feet; loosely holding a glass pipe, commonly used to smoke crack cocaine, in his right hand. 7. Officer Saito instructed Defendant to place the pipe on the ground, and he complied. 8. Upon closer inspection, Officer Saito observed the glass pipe, three (3) to four (4) inches in length with a piece of brillo in one end, and what appeared to be crack cocaine residue within it. 9. Defendant was placed under arrest for Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree and Unlawful Use of Drug Paraphernalia at 17:10 hours. 10. Officer Tara Amuimuia recovered the glass pipe from the ground and submitted [it] into evidence. 11. Honolulu Police Department Chemist Shirely Brown examined the evidence and analyzed the substance from the glas”
2 later decisions 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.