State v. Hirayasu

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the \statute charged only involves the use of signs\ and not the defendant's conduct at the time of the incident, but recognizing plain error because the trial court expressly found that the defendant’s conduct supported his conviction
• holding, without citation to either rule, that “[o]n appeal, although [the ajppellant did not raise the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the power to sua sponte notice plain errors ... clearly resides in this couni ” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted
• holding, without citation to either rule, that “[o]n appeal, although [the ajppellant did not raise the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the power to sua sponte notice plain errors ... clearly resides in this couni ” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added)
• reversing a conviction for plain error due to insufficiency of the evidence
• raising issue of sufficiency of evidence sua sponte on appeal and noting “the power to sua sponte notice plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights clearly resides in this court” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noticing plain error sua sponte, stating that “[o]n appeal, although [the ajppellant did not raise the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the power to sua sponte notice plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights clearly resides in this court” (quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).