Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Feliciano

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 2005No. 26273Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

ACOBA, J.

In my view, the same act or series of acts cannot be used as the factual basis for convicting a person of more than one offense. In this case one act was used as the common factual basis upon which to hinge all offenses and the resulting convictions. I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.

The Hawaii double jeopardy clause has been interpreted to afford greater protection than the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. In State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446, 457, 865 P.2d 150, 155 (1994), this court “concluded under the facts in that case] that the…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API