State v. Chau

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-DEC-2025
07:51 AM
Dkt. 69 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
VIHN DU CHAU, also known as VIHN CHAU, also known as ERIC CHAU,
Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2FFC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai i (the State)

appeals from the April 11, 2023 Judgment of Acquittal (Judgment

of Acquittal) entered by the Family Court of the Second Circuit

(Family Court)1 in favor of Defendant-Appellee Vihn Du Chau, also

known as Vihn Chau, also known as Eric Chau (Chau).

The State raises a single point of error, contending

that the Family Court erred when it entered the Judgment of

Acquittal because the Family Court was, in effect, sustaining a

motion to dismiss, not acquitting Chau.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

1
The Honorable James R. Rouse presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the

State's point of error as follows:

The State recognizes that it generally may not take an

appeal in a criminal case when a defendant is acquitted. See

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-13(9) (2016) (allowing the

State to appeal an acquittal following a verdict of guilty).

However, the State relies on State v. Markowski, 88 Hawai i 477,

481-82, 967 P.2d 674, 678-79 (App. 1998), wherein this court

allowed the State to appeal a judgment of acquittal with respect

to three counts where the judgment of acquittal was based on the

defense's argument that the charges underlying those counts were

defective. This court concluded that the Markowski trial court

had not reached the issue of whether some or all of the factual

elements of the charges were proven. Id. at 483, 967 P.2d at

680. Therefore, the Markowski judgment of acquittal was in form

only, not in substance, and the trial court had grounded its

ruling on the conclusion that the charges were defective. Id.

Thus, the trial court had in effect dismissed the defective

charges, which action is subject to appellate review under HRS

§ 641-13(1) (2016) (permitting a State appeal from a motion to

dismiss, inter alia, a complaint or count).

This case is distinguishable. Here, the defense

argument was that notice is an element of the charge and the

State did not establish that particular element in its case in

chief. While the Family Court may not have been fully correct in

all aspects of its interpretation of the statute under which Chau

was charged, its ruling was nevertheless grounded in its factual

determination that the State failed to prove an element of the

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

charge, stating: "That element has not been established to this

court's satisfaction." Chau was acquitted because the Family

Court concluded that the State did not establish all of the

elements of the charge.

Accordingly, appellate review is not available to the

State on the issue raised in this case. The State's appeal is

dismissed.2

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 30, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Richard B. Rost,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
County of Maui, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Taryn R. Tomasa, Associate Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellee.

2
This Summary Disposition Order is a dismissal order. No
subsequent judgment will be entered. See Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 40.1(a)(1).

3