Case Details

Court

NO. SCWC-23-0000369

ALLISEN C. MATHERN, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. EDWARD D. JONES & COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION, AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondents/Appellees-Appellees.

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/Appellant-Appellant ALLISEN C. MATHERN:
     Ted H.S. Hong

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee EDWARD D. JONES & COMPANY:
     Judy M. Iriye of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Li-Ann Yamashiro and Jung Yun Ha, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza due to a vacancy, filed 05/05/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/28/26.

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

Brief Description:

This case involves whether Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) delays in processing an unlawful termination claim violated the claimant’s due process rights.

Allisen Mathern worked as a branch office administrator for Edward D. Jones & Company (Edward Jones) in Pāhoa.  When impending lava flow closed the Pāhoa office in late 2014, Mathern temporarily moved to Edward Jones’ Hilo location.  There, she suffered work-related injuries.

Mathern took medical leave.  Seven months later, Edward Jones terminated her, citing exhaustion of her leave benefits and the “firm’s business needs.”

Mathern filed an unlawful termination claim against Edward Jones.  The DLIR hearing officer concluded that Mathern was not solely terminated based on her disability and was terminated for lack of work, so her termination was not unlawful.  The DLIR director adopted the hearing officer’s decision.

On appeal, Mathern alleged that her due process rights were violated by unreasonable agency delays totaling six years.  First, a three-year delay between her complaint filing and the DLIR hearing officer’s hearing on her claim.  Second, another three-year delay between the hearing officer’s decision and the DLIR director’s adoption of that decision.

The circuit court concluded there was no due process violation.  The ICA affirmed.  On cert, Mathern again alleges violation of her due process rights.

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

No. SCWC-23-0000336

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.”

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026 – 10:00 A.M. 

NO. SCWC-23-0000412

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IKAIKA PUA AREN AHINA, also known as AREN AHINA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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 livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant IKAIKA PUA AREN AHINA:
     Richard D. Gronna

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 04/23/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/08/26.

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

Brief Description:

On three occasions in late 2019, surveillance video captured an individual throwing rocks at the window of Stillwell’s Bakery & Café in Wailuku, Maui.  Responding Maui Police Department Officer Zachary Kamaka reviewed surveillance video and identified the individual as his former high school substitute teacher, Ahina.  Ahina was subsequently charged in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) with three counts of criminal property damage in the second degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 708-821(1)(b).

Before trial, Ahina’s attorney requested a preliminary Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 104 hearing regarding the admissibility of Officer Kamaka’s identification of Ahina, which the circuit court denied. Officer Kamaka then identified Ahina as the individual depicted in surveillance video damaging windows of Stillwell’s Bakery & Café based on his familiarity with Ahina as his former substitute teacher.  Ahina’s attorney then requested that the jury be given an eyewitness identification.  Concluding that Officer Kamaka was not an eyewitness, the circuit court declined to instruct the jury on eyewitness identification factors.  The jury found Ahina guilty as charged and the circuit court sentenced him to a four-year term of probation.    

Ahina appealed his conviction, challenging in relevant part the admissibility of Officer Kamaka’s identification testimony without a Rule 104 hearing and the circuit court’s omission of an eyewitness testimony jury instruction.  The ICA affirmed the conviction.

This court accepted certiorari as to whether the circuit court erred in (1) admitting Officer Kamaka’s testimony into evidence without a Rule 104 hearing and (2) omitting an instruction to the jury regarding the identification of Ahina.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000498

ROBERT G. GOMES, JR., Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Appellee-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

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 livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee ROBERT G. GOMES, JR.:
     Ted H.S. Hong

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee/Cross-Appellant EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Randall S. Nishiyama and Lori N. Tanigawa, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Ronald G. Johnson due to a vacancy, filed 05/21/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/19//26.

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

Brief Description:

This is a secondary appeal arising from Respondent/Appellee Employees’ Retirement System, State of Hawai‘i’s (ERS) denial of Petitioner/Appellant Robert G. Gomes, Jr.’s (Gomes) application for service-connected disability retirement.  Under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 88-79, service-connected disability retirement requires a member of the ERS be permanently incapacitated for duty as a result of an accident while in the performance of duty.  The statute further provides that the ERS Medical Board certify the member is incapacitated for further performance of duty at the time of application, and that the incapacity is likely to be permanent.

Gomes worked as a Street Cleaning Supervisor for the County of Hawai‘i.  On July 22, 2019, Gomes filed an application for service-connected disability retirement with ERS arising from a confrontation with a coworker.

The ERS Medical Board found Gomes was not permanently incapacitated and recommended the ERS Board of Trustees deny Gomes’s application, which the ERS Board did.  The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit and the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.  Gomes presents one question on certiorari: whether the ICA gravely erred by misinterpreting HRS § 88-79(a)(4)’s “likely to be permanent” language.         

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-24-0000606

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NAINOA DAMON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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 livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant NAINOA DAMON:
     Audrey Stanley

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Peter K. Kubota due to a vacancy, filed 05/14/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/29/26.

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

Brief Description:

In 2024, Defendant-Appellant Nainoa Damon (Damon) was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, terroristic threatening in the first degree, and related firearm charges.  The jury further found that a sentence enhancement should be imposed pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-660.1.  Accordingly, Damon was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed Damon’s conviction.  Damon raises the following questions for decision:

• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the trial court did not deprive Damon of his constitutional right to a fair trial and impartial jury by keeping a juror that was emotional, distraught, and afraid after an outburst in court involving Damon’s relative?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the trial court appropriately allowed evidence of an updated expert report and appropriately allowed two witnesses to testify, when the updated expert report and additional witnesses were disclosed on the eve of trial?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding the jury need not be instructed on mens rea when answering a special interrogatory on the use of a firearm under HRS § 706-660.1?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the record as not sufficiently developed to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective, under the circumstances?