§641-17 Interlocutory appeals from circuit courts, criminal matters.

420 words·~2 min read·/hi/chapter-641/641-17

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

§641-17 Interlocutory appeals from circuit courts, criminal matters. Upon application made within the time provided by the rules of court, an appeal in a criminal matter may be allowed to a defendant from the circuit court to the intermediate appellate court, subject to chapter 602, from a decision denying a motion to dismiss or from other interlocutory orders, decisions, or judgments, whenever the judge in the judge's discretion may think the same advisable for a more speedy termination of the case.

The refusal of the judge to allow an interlocutory appeal to the appellate court shall not be reviewable by any other court. [L 1892, c 57, §74; am L 1898, c 40, §2; am L 1903, c 32, §18; am L 1905, c 13, §1; RL 1925, §2515; RL 1935, §3530; RL 1945, §9531; RL 1955, §210-1; HRS §641-31; am L 1972, c 89, pt of §5; ren HRS §641-17; am L 1979, c 111, §6(6); gen ch 1985; am L 2004, c 202, §71; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]

Case Notes

This section is source of power to allow interlocutory appeal. 44 H. 613, 617, 359 P.2d 932 (1961).

Trial court shall carefully consider whether an interlocutory appeal will more speedily determine litigation, and set forth its reasons if it so concludes. 67 H. 510, 694 P.2d 388 (1985).

While trial court's permission generally required before bringing interlocutory appeal, not necessary where trial court denies pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. 79 H. 461, 903 P.2d 1282 (1995).

Where defendant failed to file notice of interlocutory appeal within thirty days from the date the order appealed from was entered, as required by HRAP rule 4(b), defendant's appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 88 H. 404, 967 P.2d 236 (1998).

Where the case was a criminal matter filed by plaintiff State of Hawaii against defendant and the police department

(HPD)was not a party to the case, HPD, as a nonparty, was not authorized to appeal the respondent judge's order denying HPD's motion to quash defendant's subpoena duces tecum pursuant to §641-11 if judgment was entered against defendant; HPD was also not authorized to appeal the order pursuant to the interlocutory appeal statute for defendants under this section, or the appeal statute for the prosecution, §641-13; having no remedy by way of appeal, HPD properly sought redress from the order by mandamus. 122 H. 204, 225 P.3d 646 (2010).

Cited: 77 H. 351, 884 P.2d 729 (1994).