STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
    Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU:
    Henry P. Ting, Deputy Public Defenders

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Paul B. K. Wong due to a vacancy, filed 02/25/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion for postponement of oral argument from 05/21/26 to 07/16/26 at 2:00 p.m.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ. and Circuit Judge Wong assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Defendant Vihn Du Chau was charged with two counts of violation of an order for protection, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11.

At trial, Chau moved for judgment of acquittal.  He claimed that because he had not been personally served with the protection order, the State had failed to prove one of the HRS § 586-11 elements.  The State argued that per HRS § 586-6, a respondent is “deemed to have notice of the [protective] order” if the respondent is present at the hearing where the order was issued.  Service was thus not an element of HRS § 586-11.  The Family Court of the Second Circuit acquitted Chau. 

The State appealed.  It argued that the circuit court erred in holding that service is an element of the offense.  The State claimed that the family court’s acquittal was in effect an order sustaining a motion to dismiss, and thus, the court did not acquit Chau.

The ICA dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  It concluded that even if the family court “may not have been fully correct” in its interpretation of HRS § 586-11, the court had factually determined that the State failed to prove an element of the charge.  Thus, the ICA determined, Chau had been acquitted, and appellate review was unavailable. 

The State appealed.  This court accepted cert and ordered supplemental briefing as to “whether service is an element of the Violation of an Order for Protection offense following the 1998 amendment to [HRS] § 586-6.”