Hawaii Supreme Court· 5/23/2002

State v. Kupihea

Citations

98 Haw. 196
46 P.3d 498

How courts have described this case

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

holding that trial court was not required to include all statutory definitions in its instructions but, rather, “should refer only to those [definitions] having a rational basis in the evidence adduced at trial and not otherwise excludable”
concluding that, based on HRS § 701-102(3), “the provisions of the [Code], such as HRS §§ 702-202 and -204 [ (1993) ], are applicable to HRS § 329-43.5 [ (1993) ],” a statute not part of the Code
stating that laws in pari materia should be construed together
stating that laws in pari materia should be construed together
“[O]ur duty in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the legislature’s intent[,] which is obtained primarily from the language of the statute.”
\`[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.'\ (Quoting State v. Kalama, 94 Hawai`i 60, 64, 8 P.3d 1224, 1228 (2000).)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Acoba, Levinson, Moon, Nakayama, Ramil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.