State v. Grindles

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “HRS § 291-4(a) provides two alternative means of proving the single offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor”
• stating that this court has \`the power to sua sponte notice plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights'\ and addressing a due process claim that \Appellant did not raise on appeal\
• stating that this court has \ 'the power to sua sponte notice plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights''' and addressing a due process claim that \Appellant did not raise on appeal”
• holding that despite the court’s discretion to control the order of proof, it could not compel the defendant to present his evidence before hearing all of the state’s evidence against him, because that was a violation of his due process right to a fair trial
• stating that \the power to sua sponte notice `plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights' clearly resides in this court\ (quoting State v. Hernandez, 61 Haw. 475, 482, 605 P.2d 75, 79 (1980))
• stating that “the power to sua sponte notice ‘plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights’ clearly resides in this court” (quoting State v. Hernandez, 61 Haw. 475, 482, 605 P.2d 75, 79 (1980))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).