Legal Opinion
State v. Armitage.
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided January 28, 2014No. SCWC-29794, SCWC-29795, SCWC-29796PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
ACOBA, J.
We hold that the complaints filed by the Respondent/ Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii (the State) against Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Nelson Kuualoha Armitage (Armitage), Russel Kahookele (Kahookele), and Henry Maile Noa (Noa) (collectively, Petitioners) of the offense of Entrance into the Reserve (Kaho'olawe Reserve or the Reserve), Hawaii Administrative Rule (HAR) § 13-261-10 (2002)1 must be dismissed without prejudice because the charges failed to charge the requisite state of mind of intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. See State v. Apollonio,…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Procunier v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Akina v. HawaiiDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2015
- Denis v. IgeDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2021