State v. Taylor., 307 P.3d 1142

Taylor was charged with Theft in the Second Degree by Deception and Unauthorized Practice of Law in Hawai'i.
Taylor testified she believed she was providing legal services on behalf of others, not committing theft, and that the $7,000 check was connected to that misconception.
A bogus check payable to Serna Lara was used; multiple witnesses corroborated Taylor’s involvement in attempting to cash the check and her lack of licensed status.
Taylor did not request a mistake-of-fact instruction at trial; the jury convicted on Theft by Deception and acquitted Unauthorized Practice of Law.
The ICA remanded for a new trial on the theft charge, holding Stenger required a mistake-of-fact instruction when evidence suggested the defense.
Taylor appealed alleging error in omitting the mistake-of-fact instruction; the State urged overruling Stenger; this court Clarifies Stenger and reaffirm Nichols’ merger approach to review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stenger should be overruled	State argues Stenger is misapplied and should be overruled.	Taylor argues Stenger correctly imposes a duty to instruct on mistake of fact when evidence supports the defense.	Stenger not overruled; clarified but Nichols governs.
Is omission of a non-requested mistake-of-fact instruction plain error	Taylor contends omission was plain error because evidence supported the defense.	Taylor contends the defense had some supportive evidence and should have been instructed.	Omission not plain error in this case; conviction affirmed.
Proper standard for unrequested defense instructions and the role of 'credible evidence'	Argues for a low threshold (no credible-evidence filter) to require defense instructions.	Argues against elevating credibility or weighing weight of evidence to trigger instruction.	Rejects 'credible evidence' gating; adheres to no-bleed standard tied to presence of any supporting evidence.
The correct motion-test for instructional errors after Nichols	Argues Nichols' plain-error-first approach should apply to unrequested defense instructions.	Acoba argues for merged plain-error with harmless-error review and direct application of harmless-review after error is found.	Nichols approach maintained; merger of plain-error and harmless-error review applied when error occurred.

State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai'i 271 (Haw. 2010) (limits on sua sponte mistake-of-fact instruction and later clarification)
State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai'i 327 (Haw. 2006) (plain-error-harmless-error merger for instructional errors; duty to instruct)
State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai'i 195 (Haw. 2002) (defenses with any support require instruction; burden-shifting framework)
State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172 (Haw. 1995) (rejects 'credible evidence' requirement from Commentary to HRS 701-115(2))
State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai'i 405 (Haw. 2001) (duty to instruct on lesser-included offenses; control of instruction by court)
State v. Kupau, 76 Hawai'i 387 (Haw. 1994) (early duty of court to instruct; included-offense framework)
People v. Barton, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 (Cal. 1995) (reference for judicial duty to instruct on defenses)