861 P.2d 11, 19 (1993) (quoting State v. Texeira, 50 Haw. 138, 142 n. 2, 433 P.2d 593, 597 n. 2 (1967)). “Our state constitutional safeguards ‘must at least comport with United States Supreme Court standards.’ ” State v. Silva, 78 Hawaii 115, 117-18, 890 P.2d 702, 704-05 (App.1995) (quoting State v. Grahovac, 52 Haw. 527, 533, 480 P.2d 148, 152 (1971)). Because the text of the double jeopardy clause in the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution is essentially the same as the language of the double jeopardy clause in article I, section 10 of the Hawaii Constitution, we hold that the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense set forth in Pearce also inheres in our state constitution. See Haw. Const. art. 10, § 1; see also Silva, 78 Hawaii 115, 890 P.2d 702 (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that Defendant had already
holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that a criminal defendants right to an impartial jury is guaranteed by article 1 section 9 of the pennsylvania constitution holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution recognizing that the due process guaranteed under the alabama constitution is coextensive with the due process guaranteed under the united states constitution