State v. Aplaca

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “under Hawaii’s Constitution, defendants are clearly afforded greater protection of their right to effective assistance of counsel” than under the United States Constitution
• presuming that trial court applied the correct standard of proof
• concluding counsel provided ineffective assistance based on a review of the record
• electing not to investigate without adequate inquiry of the facts is not considered a tactical decision
• applying this rule in a criminal case where the trial court “merely commented on the nature of the evidence in support of the finding of guilt”; specifically, the trial court noted that the witness’ testimony was more credible than the defendant’s
• failure to call witnesses who would have bolstered defendant’s credibility at trial in which defendant was sole defense witness held to constitute substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).