In the Interest of Doe
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
LEVINSON, Justice.
The present appeal requires us to answer the following significant question of first impression in this jurisdiction: What are the constitutional constraints placed upon the state’s power to prosecute a criminal defendant for the offense of “harassment,” in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711—1106(1)(b) (1985),1 by the “fighting *89words” doctrine originally enunciated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)? The issue arises in the context of the juvenile-appellant John Doe’s (the Minor) claim that the evidence presented at…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Cohen v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Rankin v. McPhersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gitlow v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- State v. ArceoHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. JenkinsHawaii Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. GaylordHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. WallaceHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. KotisHawaii Supreme Court · 1999
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.