Legal Opinion

In the Interest of Doe

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1994No. 15986PublishedCited by 75 opinions

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

  1. Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Cohen v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Rankin v. McPhersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Gitlow v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1925

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

3Cited by75 opinions

  1. State v. ArceoHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. JenkinsHawaii Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. GaylordHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State v. WallaceHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. KotisHawaii Supreme Court · 1999

70 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