Legal Opinion · Concurrence
State v. Stuart
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided March 12, 1970No. 4798Published
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION OF
LEVINSON, J.
Because the opinion of the majority has failed to cover adequately a number of important questions raised by this case which were neither briefed nor argued fully, I am constrained to offer a concurring opinion.
I. MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL
A. Functions of Motion for Acquittal.
My primary objection to the majority opinion is that it fails to distinguish between the standard which a trial judge must apply on a motion for acquittal and the standard used on appeal to determine if there is sufficient evi*665dence to support a verdict of guilty. Compare State v. Kekaualua, 50…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Holland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- United States v. Roy Arthur NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- Earl R. Cephus v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1963
- Katherine Idell Jackson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.