In a 23-page unanimous decision, the high court ruled that the criminal charge was defective because it did not allege the required state of mind that Chun acted "knowingly, intentionally or recklessly." The court also said Circuit Judge Steven Alm should not have insisted that Chun plead guilty rather than no contest.

Chun did not serve out the sentence and was permitted to remain free pending yesterday's decision.

Honolulu attorney Dale Lee said he and Chun declined comment.

City Deputy Prosecutor Randal Lee, who has handled the three-year prosecution of dozens of architects, engineers and others accused of illegal campaign contributions, said he plans to refile the criminal case against Chun.

Lee said yesterday's decision will not affect other cases dealing with illegal campaign donation. Once the issue was raised in Chun's appeal, prosecutors have been alleging the state of mind in other cases, Lee said.

The only others given jail terms in the series of cases were John A. Adversalo and Daniel K. Rosario for illegal donations made to the Harris campaign. The two already have served their 10-day jail terms. Because they were granted a chance to have their criminal charges dropped if they abided by conditions similar to probation, they were not entitled to an appeal. Alm also handed down their jail terms.

Chun pleaded guilty in 2003 to making an illegal campaign contribution over the limit, but reserved his right to appeal.

In exchange, a companion misdemeanor charge that he made donations under false names was dropped. Lee said both charges will be refiled.

According to the court's decision yesterday, Chun instructed two vice presidents of the Food Pantry to write personal checks totaling $5,000 to the Harris campaign. The two men were told they would be reimbursed with "bonuses."

The high court said the charge was defective because it did not allege Chun's state of mind when he purportedly committed the offense. Without that state of mind, the offense more properly would be a civil administrative matter rather than a crime, the justices indicated.

The deputy prosecutor said the language wasn't included in Chun's case because the office based its charge on the state's law on illegal donations.

The high court acknowledged that statute doesn't include the state of mind, but noted that a related law states a person commits the offense by acting "knowingly, intentionally or recklessly."

The court also commented on Alm's practice of not accepting no-contest pleas. Under state law, a no-contest plea means defendants don't contest the charges, even though they are warned they will almost automatically be found guilty.

The high court indicated that a judge's decision on whether to accept no-contest pleas should be made on a case-by-case basis. "A blanket policy that categorically rejects all proffered no-contest pleas is inimical (hostile) to the essence of that concept," the high court said.