State v. Ryan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an emphasis on officers’ training and experience in domestic violence cases gave the officers “an aura of being experts in evaluating the truthfulness” of the complaining witness’s statements
• holding an officer’s opinion testimony that the complaining witness was truthful impermissibly invaded the province of the jury to determine the facts
• holding an officer’s opinion testimony that the complaining witness was truthful impermissibly invaded the province of the jury to determine the facts
• finding inadmissible police officers’ testimony that they did have any reason not to believe the complaining witness
• “Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the family court abused its discretion in permitting [the responding officers’] testimony.”
• “Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the family court abused its discretion in permitting [the responding officers’] testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Jones.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2020-06-30· cited 23×
• State v. Calara.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2014-02-14· cited 7×
• State v. Eager.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2017-06-30· cited 4×
• State v. Ikimaka. ICA mem. op., filed 11/27/2019.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2020-06-09· cited 1×
• KP v. EM. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Ginoza, J., in which McKenna, J., Joins. ICA s.d.o., filed 03/28/2024 [ada], 154 Haw. 89. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/05/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/04/2024 [ada].
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2025-09-15