Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 6/27/1980
State v. Mata
Citations
- 613 P.2d 919
- 1 Haw. App. 31
- 1980 Haw. App. LEXIS 99
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a continuance, consented to by a defendant, constituted a period which was excluded for the purpose of calculating whether a trial had commenced within thé six month time limit of HRPP Rule 48
- nine-month delay sufficient to require consideration of Barker elements
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hayashi, Padgett, Burns
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. SamonteHawaii Supreme Court· 1996-11-26· cited 72×
- State v. JacksonHawaii Supreme Court· 1996-02-26· cited 59×
- Hawaii v. NihipaliHawaii Supreme Court· 1981-11-30· cited 18×
- State v. DurryHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1983-05-18· cited 12×
- State v. ChoyHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1983-03-21· cited 1×
- State v. JayHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2008-06-30
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court· 1972-06-22· cited 12,108×
- State v. ApaoHawaii Supreme Court· 1978-11-02· cited 82×
- State v. MurphyHawaii Supreme Court· 1978-02-21· cited 81×
- State v. BannisterHawaii Supreme Court· 1979-05-01· cited 38×
- State v. HopkinsHawaii Supreme Court· 1979-03-28· cited 33×
- State v. JoaoHawaii Supreme Court· 1971-12-13· cited 29×
- State v. AlmeidaHawaii Supreme Court· 1973-05-01· cited 26×
- State v. ScotlandHawaii Supreme Court· 1977-12-02· cited 21×
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.