Hawaii Supreme Court· 7/21/1975

State v. Iaukea

Citations

537 P.2d 724

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that evidence of the defendant’s prior crimes, which explained and placed in context the complaining witness’s statements and actions, was admissible
stating, “[t]he appellant’s acts of violence or intimidation need not be done for the very purpose of taking the victim’s property to constitute robbery”
\The law does not require that the use of force or the threatened imminent use of force be done for the very purpose of taking the victim’s property.\
\The law does not require that the use of force or the threatened imminent use of force be done for the very purpose of taking the victim's property.\
defendant was aware of victim’s knowledge of his past history of attacks on women, which explained her lack of resistance and which made it unlikely that he would have construed her actions as consent
defendant was aware of victim's knowledge of his past history of attacks on women, which explained her lack of resistance and which made it unlikely that he would have construed her actions as consent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Richardson, C.J., Kobayashi and Ogata, Jj., Hayashi, Circuit Judge, in Place of Menor, J., Disqualified, and Kato, Circuit Judge, Assigned by Reason of Vacancy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

60 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.