State v. Sua’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The standard of review for a trial court's issuance or refusal of a jury instruction is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.' State v. Balanza, 93 Hawai`i 279, 283, 1 P.3d 281, 285 (2000) (quotation and internal quotation marks omitted). `[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.' State v. Sua, 92 Hawai`i 61, 69, 987 P.2d 959, 967 (1999) (quoting State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. 509, 527 , 778 P.2d 704, 716 (1989) (quotation omitted)) (brackets in original). In other words, [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. Id. (quoting State v. Heard, 64 Haw. 193, 194 , 638 P.2d 307, 308 (1981) (citations omitted))."”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mainaaupo · State v. Rabago

2. “After closing arguments, the circuit court instructed the jury on murder in the second degree: The defendant is charged with the offense of Murder in the Second Degree. A person commits the offense of Murder in the Second Degree if she intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person. There are two material elements of the offense of Murder in the Second Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These two elements are[:] (1), that on or about the 21st day of October, 1997, to and including the 24th day of October, 1997, on the island of Oahu, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, [Aganon] caused the death of Ka-rie Caneneia. And, (2), that [Aganon] did so intentionally or knowingly. [[Image here]] A person acts intentionally with respect to her conduct when it is her conscious object to engage in such conduct. A person acts intentionally with respect to attendant circumstances when she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes, that they exist. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of her conduct when it is her conscious object to cause such a result. A person acts knowingly with respect to her conduct when she is aware that her conduct is of that nature. A person acts knowingly with respect to attendant circumstances when she is aware that such circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of her conduct when she is aware that it is practically cert”

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

3. “[T]he confrontation clause restricts the range of admissible hearsay in two ways. First, the prosecution must either produce, or demonstrate the unavailability of, a declarant whose statement it wishes to use against a defendant. Second, upon a showing that the witness is unavailable, only statements that bear adequate indicia of reliability are admissible.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Delos Santos · State v. Haili