Hawaii Supreme Court· 12/30/1999

State v. White

Citations

990 P.2d 90
92 Haw. 192
1999 Haw. LEXIS 411

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the period for calculating the delay commences on the day the indictment was filed
holding that a period of eleven months, not attributable to the defendant, was insufficient to render prong two in favor of defendant
concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of defense counsel’s cross-examination because the jury had sufficient impeachment information to assess the witness’s credibility and motivation to fabricate testimony against the defendant
holding that eleven-month delay warranted inquiry into the other Barker factors
holding that on balance, the second Barker factor weighed in favor of the State because the defendant contributed in substantial part to the delay which he later claimed prejudiced him, and the State's delay did not appear to be calculated to cause unreasonable delay
holding in speedy trial violation context that defendant being responsible for substantial part of the delay outweighed State's motions to continue that did not appear calculated to cause unreasonable delay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moon, Klein, Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

35 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.