Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Reis

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 2007No. 27171, 27172Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

ACOBA, J.

I respectfully dissent.

In my view, the majority in this case incorrectly applies the terms “proceedings” and “penalty incurred” in the generic savings clause in Section 29 of Act 44, 2004 Haw. Sess. L. Act 44 [hereinafter Act 44], § 29 [hereinafter Section 29], to preclude the application of Section 11 of Act 44 [hereinafter, Section 11] to Defendant-Appellee Susan Reis (Reis). In light of its ameliorative and remedial purpose of allowing first-time drug offenders to be sentenced to probation, Section 11 should be applied to Reis because (1) under a plain reading…

2Cases cited80 opinions

  1. Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Evangelatos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Warden v. MarreroSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Bradley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

75 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