State v. Cabagbag
277 P.3d 1027
Haw.2012Background
- Cabagbag was convicted of Unauthorized Control of a Propelled Vehicle and Theft in the Second Degree based largely on Officer Tomimbang's eyewitness identification.
- The trial court did not give a specific eyewitness identification cautionary instruction, and neither party requested one.
- The ICA affirmed, ruling that the circuit court had discretion not to give a cautionary instruction because other trial conduct adequately directed attention to identification.
- The Hawai`i Supreme Court adopted a new rule requiring a specific eyewitness identification instruction when identification is central and requested by the defendant, and authorized a model instruction.
- The new rule was held to apply prospectively, not retroactively, affecting cases tried after the decision date.
- The dissent would have required sua sponte instruction and retroactive application; the majority rejected that approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give an eyewitness instruction was plain error | Cabagbag argues the identification issue was central and required a cautionary instruction. | Cabagbag contends the instruction was required and omission was plain error; the trial record shows adequate focus otherwise. | Conviction affirmed; rule applied prospectively |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. State, 57 Haw. 150 (1976) (eyewitness identification discretion preserved; due process and totality of circumstances)
- Pahio v. State, 58 Haw. 323 (1977) (eyewitness instruction discretion reaffirmed)
- Okumura v. State, 78 Hawai`i 383 (1995) (summary of identification instruction approach and discretion)
- Vinge v. State, 81 Hawai`i 309 (1996) (recognition of eyewitness identification concerns in jury instructions)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (due process did not require pretrial reliability inquiry where not law-enforcement orchestrated)
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (enhanced identification instructions for cross-racial identifications)
- State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai`i 271 (2010) (sua sponte instruction considerations in related context)
