Hawaii Supreme Court· 7/17/1996

State v. Moore

Citations

921 P.2d 122
82 Haw. 202

How courts have described this case

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

holding that admission of former testimony given at a supervised release hearing did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation
holding that the complainant’s statement that her husband shot her was an excited utterance in part because of the “violent nature of the startling event”
holding that the complainant's statement that her husband shot her was an excited utterance in part because of the \violent nature of the startling event\
holding that the appellate court need not decide if the trial court erred in admitting evidence under HRE Rule 803(b)(3
holding that hearsay statement may qualify as excited utterance even though proponent has not established short time interval between startling incident and statement
concluding that it is the prerogative of the appellate court to disregard any claim for which the appellant presents no discernable argument

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moon, Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, Chang, Klein

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

64 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.