State v. Tui., 138 Haw. 462

Defendant Joseph Tui, Jr. was found unfit to proceed under HRS chapter 704 and committed to the custody of the Director of Health at the Hawaii State Hospital.
The Director moved to transfer Tui from the State Hospital to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and/or for a finding that he had regained fitness; the circuit court denied transfer pending a three-examiner re‑examination.
The circuit court later appointed a three‑panel re‑examination; after the panel report the court found Tui fit and ordered his transfer to DPS.
The Director appealed the circuit court’s pre‑re‑examination denial of transfer to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).
The ICA dismissed the appeal as moot because custody had already been transferred, and stated the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception did not appear to apply because the Director had not shown she could not obtain review by other means (e.g., mandamus).
The Director sought certiorari to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, which vacated the ICA’s dismissal and remanded, holding (1) an appellant need not first seek extraordinary writs before invoking the capable‑of‑repetition exception and (2) the exception applies here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Director of Health)	Defendant's Argument (Tui)	Held
Whether appellate courts require an appellant to pursue extraordinary writs (mandamus/prohibition) before invoking the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" mootness exception	Director: No such requirement; extraordinary writs are not a prerequisite to appellate review of the exception	Tui: ICA’s mootness dismissal was correct and no appellate relief was available after transfer	Held: No requirement to pursue extraordinary writs before asking an appellate court to apply the exception; ICA erred in imposing such a prerequisite
Whether the capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review exception applies to disputes over pre‑re‑examination custody transfers	Director: The issue recurs and typically becomes moot before appellate review because defendants often are transferred by the time appeal is heard	Tui: Circuit court must find regained fitness before custody can be transferred; thus appeal is moot after transfer	Held: Exception applies—the dispute is likely to recur and evade review, so the ICA erred in dismissing the appeal as moot

Kema v. Gaddis, 982 P.2d 334 (Haw. 1999) (extraordinary writs are extraordinary and require a clear, indisputable right and lack of other adequate remedies)
Kaho‘ohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007) (a case is moot if the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief)
Hamilton ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 193 P.3d 839 (Haw. 2008) (recognition of mootness exceptions including capable‑of‑repetition yet evading review)
Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 53 P.3d 799 (Haw. 2002) (discussion of mootness exceptions affecting public interest)
Wong v. Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Hawai‘i, 616 P.2d 201 (Haw. 1980) (mootness doctrine and justiciability principles)