State v. Riveira (1978)

State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 154 , 577 *406 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (“If a proffered request is in any respect incorrect, the denial of such a request is not error.”).

However, because a defendant is "entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence involved[,]" State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 153 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978), we consider only whether there was any evidence in the record supporting an instruction on the parental discipline and mutual affray defenses.

See Riveira, 59 Haw. at 154 , 577 P.2d at 797 (“The rule requiring the submission of factual determinations to the jury if there is any evidence upon which the jury may act is based on the principle that credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence are for the jury to decide.”).

And faced with inaccurate or incomplete instructions, "[the] trial court has a duty to, with the aid of counsel, either correct the defective instruction or to otherwise incorporate it into its own instruction. " State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 155 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (emphasis added and citations omitted)....

And faced with inaccurate or incomplete instructions, "[t]he trial court has a duty to, with the aid of counsel, either correct the defective instruction or to otherwise incorporate it into its own instruction. " State v. Riveira, 59 Haw 148, 155, 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (emphasis added and citations omitted); see HRPP 30(c) (1981).

State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 154 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (citation omitted). 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** This case is an example of the difficulty of applying West.

Thus, in the analogous situation where there is evidence before the jury suggesting the defense of self-defense, a defendant is “entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court.” State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 153-54 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (citations omitted). 3 Again, the same rule would apply whether the fact finder was a judge or a jury since the obligation to consider defenses …

And faced with inaccurate or incomplete instructions, “[the] trial court has a duty to, with the aid of counsel, either correct the defective instruction or to otherwise incorporate it into its own instruction.” State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 155 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (emphasis added and citations omitted)....

And faced with inaccurate or incomplete instructions, "[the] trial court has a duty to, with the aid of counsel, either correct the defective instruction or to otherwise incorporate it into its own instruction." State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 155 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (emphasis added and citations omitted)....

And faced with inaccurate or incomplete instructions, “[the] trial court has a duty to, with the aid of counsel, either correct the defective instruction or to otherwise incorporate it into its own instruction.” State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 155 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978) (emphasis added and citations omitted)....

Thus, we have no quarrel with the notion that “[t]he jury is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight of the evidence.” State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 229 , 738 P.2d 812, 828 (1987) (citation omitted); see also State v. Riveira, 59 Haw. 148, 154 , 577 P.2d 793, 797 (1978).