From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

STATE v. CHAN FUNG

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii
Nov 23, 2010
124 Haw. 365 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

applying Kutzen to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting a photograph that was undisputedly the defendant's mug shot, but did not have the common characteristics of a mug shot, while noting that "[i]t is not clear . . . whether the Kutzen test applies to every photograph of a criminal defendant obtained while in police custody or whether it applies only to photographs with some associated indicia of criminal conduct"

Summary of this case from State v. Riveira

Opinion

No. 30206.

November 23, 2010.


Summary Dispositional Orders Affirmed.


Summaries of

STATE v. CHAN FUNG

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii
Nov 23, 2010
124 Haw. 365 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010)

applying Kutzen to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting a photograph that was undisputedly the defendant's mug shot, but did not have the common characteristics of a mug shot, while noting that "[i]t is not clear . . . whether the Kutzen test applies to every photograph of a criminal defendant obtained while in police custody or whether it applies only to photographs with some associated indicia of criminal conduct"

Summary of this case from State v. Riveira
Case details for

STATE v. CHAN FUNG

Case Details

Full title:State v. Chan Fung

Court:Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

Date published: Nov 23, 2010

Citations

124 Haw. 365 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010)
243 P.3d 325

Citing Cases

State v. Riveira

Kutzen, 1 Haw. App. at 412-13, 620 P.2d at 262-63 (quoting U.S. v. Fosher, 568 F.2d 207, 214 (1st Cir.…

State v. Barrios

Rather, it is a proper appeal to the jury to do "justice" based on the evidence that was introduced during…