State v. Fukusaku

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that general verdicts failed to reveal whether defendant was convicted on accomplice liability theory and that evidence supported accomplice liability theory
• holding that defense counsel did not “open the door” to the introduction of inadmissible evidence by eliciting admissible evidence
• holding that hah’ and fiber evidence have been overwhelmingly accepted by the courts
• holding that the duress defense did not apply because the defendant, who was charged with murder, did not present evidence of the use or threatened use of unlawful force against him
• holding that trial court committed no error where defendant “failed to specify what items of derivative evidence he sought to suppress,” and, as such, “failed to describe the ‘fruit’ to which the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine would be applied”
• stating that, under HRE Rule 702, “[t]he critical inquiry with respect to expert testimony ... is whether such testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).