Hawaii Supreme Court· 4/11/1994

State v. McGriff

Citations

871 P.2d 782
76 Haw. 148
1994 Haw. LEXIS 24

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 hearsay statement did not violate the confrontation clause because it fell within the “firmly rooted” co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule
holding that “under the confrontation clause of the Hawai’i Constitution, a showing of the declarant’s unavailability is necessary to promote the integrity of the fact finding process and to ensure fairness to defendants” (quotations omitted)
noting that this court may sua sponte notice plain errors affecting an accused's substantial rights
noting that this court may sua sponte notice plain errors affecting an accused’s substantial rights
stating that it is presumed that the jury will abide by the court's admonition to disregard a prosecutor's improper remarks
explaining that the “Supreme Court [] has held that the sixth amendment confrontation clause does not necessitate a showing of unavailability for evidence falling within certain hearsay exceptions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moon, Klein, Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named State v. McGriff

15 other CourtListener records share this case 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.