State v. Robinson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a defendant’s “taped confession is a tangible exhibit which is non-testimonial in character,” and holding that “a videotape of a defendant’s confession . . . may be taken into the jury room during deliberations” (quotation simplified)
• allowing videotape of defendant’s voluntary confession as merely a modern substitute for a written statement finding it accomplished the same purpose, but more expeditiously and more correctly
• once properly admitted, defendant’s taped confession was a non-testimonial tangible exhibit to which jury could have unlimited access

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Cordeiro
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2002-10-07· cited 94×
• State v. Maelega
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1995-12-07· cited 87×
• Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Society
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1997-04-09· cited 83×
• State v. Kassebeer
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2008-09-30· cited 43×
• State v. Torres
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1997-10-29· cited 22×
• State v. Bales
  Montana Supreme Court· 1999-12-29· cited 17×
• State v. Smith
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1998-01-14· cited 17×
• State v. Steger
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2007-04-10· cited 13×
• State v. Bermejo
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 2020-10-22· cited 13×
• State v. Monroe
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2001-02-07· cited 6×
• State v. Brooks
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2010-07-22· cited 1×
• State v. Zuffante. Opinion by Recktenwald, C.J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Dissenting Opinion by Ginoza, J. ICA s.d.o., filed 09/18/2024 [ada], 155 Haw. 95. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/23/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/05/2025 [ada].
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2025-09-17