State v. Cabinatan., 319 P.3d 1071

Cabinatan and Moore were tried for burglary in the First Degree and UEMV in the First Degree arising from June 2, 2010 incidents.
Kincaid identified Cabinatan as the driver during a field show-up at a traffic stop; she identified Moore as well.
The circuit court denied specific eyewitness identification instructions; the jury convicted Cabinatan on Counts 1 and 2.
Moore pleaded no contest; a probation revocation in Cr. No. 09-1-0854 followed the convictions in Cr. No. 10-1-0904.
The ICA affirmed; Cabagbag issued during the appeal required a specific eyewitness instruction when identification is central and requested.
The Supreme Court vacated the convictions and probation revocation, remanding for new proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give specific eyewitness instructions was error	Cabinatan argues the court abused discretion by not providing specific instructions.	State contends discretion allowed and Cabagbag not retroactive here.	Abuse of discretion; convictions vacated and remanded.
Whether probation revocation was proper	Cabinatan contends probation revocation should be vacated due to flawed conviction process.	State defends revocation as proper under the circumstances.	Vacated; remanded with convictions voided.
Retroactivity of Cabagbag rule	Cabinatan argues Cabagbag applies retroactively because identification was central.	State argues Cabagbag is prospective and not retroactive to pending appeals.	Cabagbag applies prospectively; pre-Cabagbag standard governs in this case.

State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai'i 383 (1995) (identification instruction discretion and scope)
State v. Vinge, 81 Hawai'i 309 (1996) (pre-Cabagbag framework; adequacy of attention to identification evidence)
State v. Padilla, 57 Haw. 150 (1976) (identification instruction discretion case law)
State v. Pahio, 58 Haw. 323 (1977) (factors guiding credibility and identification evidence)
Cabagbag, 127 Hawai'i 302 (2012) (eyewitness identification instruction required when central and requested)
State v. Cabagbag, 127 Hawai'i 302 (2012) (eyewitness identification rule and retroactivity discussion)
State v. Briones, 74 Hawai'i 442 (1993) (reliability and weighing of eyewitness testimony)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (suspect showups; dangers of suggestive identifications)
United States v. Newman, 144 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 1998) (showups inherently suggestive; reliability concerns)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (Dissent discussing reliability of eyewitness testimony and confidence)