§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).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
36
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017).
State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 18× “2004), which sets forth the right of appeal in circuit court criminal cases; (2) a certified interlocutory order pursuant to HRS § 641-17 (1993); 4 or (3) an order denying a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy principles.”
State v. Baxley, 73 P.3d 668 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 20× “3d at 591-92 , pursuant to HRS § 641-17, (3) by virtue of the collateral order doctrine, see id.”
State v. Taylor, 269 P.3d 740 (Haw. 2011).
· cites it 18× “On December 13, 2007, Taylor filed, and the circuit court granted, a motion for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-17. [15] On December 14, 2007, Taylor filed a notice of interlocutory appeal.”
State v. Naititi, 87 P.3d 893 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 8× “The prosecution disputed the circuit court's suggestion that the prosecution's appeal was interlocutory, pursuant to HRS § 641-17 (1993). [5] Nevertheless, the circuit court ruled as follows: *899 THE COURT: [T]he court is clear that this is not a matter for which appeal can be…”
State v. Irvine, 967 P.2d 236 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 12× “On March 20,1998, while the written order denying the motion to suppress was being prepared, Irvine moved the circuit court under HRS § 641-17 for leave to take an interlocutory appeal of the decision denying the motion to suppress.”
State v. Baranco, 884 P.2d 729 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 6× “interlocutory appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-17 (1985), which the circuit court also denied.”
State v. Haili, 79 P.3d 1263 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 4× “He did not testify in his own defense. The circuit court gave a number of limiting instructions during the course of the trial.”
Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 4× “that the instant appeal[ ] [is] interlocutory in nature" and that "[t]he State should have moved long ago to dismiss the instant appeal[ ] [because Powers had not obtained leave of court as required under HRS § 641-17]." Mohr then asserts that, in the alternative, he would file…”
State v. Michaeledes., 524 P.3d 1241 (Haw. 2023).
· cites it 6× “During a recess immediately following the district court’s denial, the defendant filed a notice of 8 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** appeal to this court of the ruling denying his motion to dismiss under HRS § 641-17 (1993), 9 arguing lack…”
State v. Kealaiki, 22 P.3d 588 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 2× “which followed the Conditional Plea entered January 18, 2000,” pursuant to an order extending the time for appeal. 1 II. In a circuit court criminal case, a defendant may appeal from the judgment of the circuit court, see HRS § 641-11 (1993), from a certified interlocutory…”
State v. Nilsawit., 384 P.3d 862 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 6× “”); HRS § 641-17 (“The refusal of the judge to allow an interlocutory appeal to the appellate court shall not be reviewable by any other court.”
State v. Lau, 890 P.2d 291 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 2× “On May 6, 1993, the circuit court filed an order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss and an order granting leave to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-17 (1985). Defendants now appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-17(1993) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.