instruction on every defense in Hawaii

1996Thus, Moore was “entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. Agrabante, 73 Haw. 179, 196 , 830 P.2d 492, 501 (1992) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. O’Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 527-28 , 616 P.2d 1383, 1390 (1980)).

1996Thus, Moore was “entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. Agrabante, 73 Haw. 179, 196 , 830 P.2d 492, 501 (1992) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. O’Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 527-28 , 616 P.2d 1383, 1390 (1980)).

2010I recognize the well-established precedent that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” 2 State v. Hironaka, 99 Hawai'i 198, 204 , 53 P.3d 806, 812 (2002) (quoting State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 178-79 , 907 P.2d 758, 764-65 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

2010I recognize the well-established precedent that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” 2 State v. Hironaka, 99 Hawai'i 198, 204 , 53 P.3d 806, 812 (2002) (quoting State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai'i 172, 178-79 , 907 P.2d 758, 764-65 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

2010Jury Instructions In a criminal trial, an "accused is entitled to an instruction on every defense supported by the evidence, no matter how inconclusive the evidence may be, provided that evidence would support consideration of that issue by the jury." State v. McMillen, 83 Hawai'i 264, 265 , 925 P.2d 1088, 1089 (1996).

2010Jury Instructions In a criminal trial, an "accused is entitled to an instruction on every defense supported by the evidence, no matter how inconclusive the evidence may be, provided that evidence would support consideration of that issue by the jury." State v. McMillen, 83 Hawai'i 264, 265 , 925 P.2d 1088, 1089 (1996).

2024State v. Agrabante, 73 Haw. 179, 196 , 830 P.2d 492, 501 (1992) ("A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.") (cleaned up).

2024State v. Agrabante, 73 Haw. 179, 196 , 830 P.2d 492, 501 (1992) ("A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.") (cleaned up).

2013Our cases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the .jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” Pinero, 75 Haw. at 304 , 859 P.2d at 1379 (emphases added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2013Our cases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the .jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” Pinero, 75 Haw. at 304 , 859 P.2d at 1379 (emphases added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2000If you should find that the accused engaged in the prohibited conduct under ignorance or mistake of fact and that mistake negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the offense, you must vote for acquittal of the accused. [ (Instruction 4) ] We agree that a criminal defendant is “entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai'i 304, 313-14 ,

2000If you should find that the accused engaged in the prohibited conduct under ignorance or mistake of fact and that mistake negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the offense, you must vote for acquittal of the accused. [ (Instruction 4) ] We agree that a criminal defendant is “entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai'i 304, 313-14 ,

1999“However, this court has also noted that ‘where evidentiary support for [an] asserted defense, or for any of its essential components, is clearly lacking, it would not be error for the trial court *78 to refuse to charge on the issue or to instruct the jury not to consider it.’” Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i at 333 , 966 P.2d at 645 (quoting State v. Moore, 82 Hawai'i 202, 210 , 921 P.2d 122, 130 (1996) (citation omitted)) (brackets in original); see also Russo, 69 Haw. at 76 , 734 P.2d at 158 ; State v. Warner, 58 Haw. 492, 498-99 , 573 P.2d 959, 963 (1977).

1999“However, this court has also noted that ‘where evidentiary support for [an] asserted defense, or for any of its essential components, is clearly lacking, it would not be error for the trial court *78 to refuse to charge on the issue or to instruct the jury not to consider it.’” Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i at 333 , 966 P.2d at 645 (quoting State v. Moore, 82 Hawai'i 202, 210 , 921 P.2d 122, 130 (1996) (citation omitted)) (brackets in original); see also Russo, 69 Haw. at 76 , 734 P.2d at 158 ; State v. Warner, 58 Haw. 492, 498-99 , 573 P.2d 959, 963 (1977).

1999Inasmuch as the record contained no evidence supporting Sua’s proposed defense, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact. “ ‘Our eases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i 325, 333 , 966 P.2d 637, 645 (

1999Inasmuch as the record contained no evidence supporting Sua’s proposed defense, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact. “ ‘Our eases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i 325, 333 , 966 P.2d 637, 645 (

2013Loc-quiao first reiterated that “[t]his court has consistently held that ‘ “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” Id. at 206 , 58 P.3d at 1253 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2013Loc-quiao first reiterated that “[t]his court has consistently held that ‘ “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” Id. at 206 , 58 P.3d at 1253 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2011This argument is not persuasive because this court has held that "a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai'i 195, 205 , 58 P.3d 1242, 1252 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Hironaka, 99 Hawai'i 198, 204 , 53 P.3d 806, 812 (2002)).

2011This argument is not persuasive because this court has held that "a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai'i 195, 205 , 58 P.3d 1242, 1252 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Hironaka, 99 Hawai'i 198, 204 , 53 P.3d 806, 812 (2002)).

1999Inasmuch as the record contained no evidence supporting Sua’s proposed defense, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact. “ ‘Our eases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i 325, 333 , 966 P.2d 637, 645 (

1999Inasmuch as the record contained no evidence supporting Sua’s proposed defense, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact. “ ‘Our eases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i 325, 333 , 966 P.2d 637, 645 (

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

1999Inasmuch as the record contained no evidence supporting Sua’s proposed defense, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact. “ ‘Our eases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i 325, 333 , 966 P.2d 637, 645 (

1999Inasmuch as the record contained no evidence supporting Sua’s proposed defense, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact. “ ‘Our eases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i 325, 333 , 966 P.2d 637, 645 (

1999“However, this court has also noted that ‘where evidentiary support for [an] asserted defense, or for any of its essential components, is clearly lacking, it would not be error for the trial court *78 to refuse to charge on the issue or to instruct the jury not to consider it.’” Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i at 333 , 966 P.2d at 645 (quoting State v. Moore, 82 Hawai'i 202, 210 , 921 P.2d 122, 130 (1996) (citation omitted)) (brackets in original); see also Russo, 69 Haw. at 76 , 734 P.2d at 158 ; State v. Warner, 58 Haw. 492, 498-99 , 573 P.2d 959, 963 (1977).

1999“However, this court has also noted that ‘where evidentiary support for [an] asserted defense, or for any of its essential components, is clearly lacking, it would not be error for the trial court *78 to refuse to charge on the issue or to instruct the jury not to consider it.’” Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i at 333 , 966 P.2d at 645 (quoting State v. Moore, 82 Hawai'i 202, 210 , 921 P.2d 122, 130 (1996) (citation omitted)) (brackets in original); see also Russo, 69 Haw. at 76 , 734 P.2d at 158 ; State v. Warner, 58 Haw. 492, 498-99 , 573 P.2d 959, 963 (1977).

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

1993Our precedent establishes that a “defendant ‘is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.’ ” Pinero, 70 Haw. at 525 , 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting State v. O’Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 527-28 , 616 P.2d 1383, 1390 (1980)) (emphasis in original); State v. Unea, 60 Haw. 504 , 591 P.2d 615 (1979).

1993Our precedent establishes that a “defendant ‘is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.’ ” Pinero, 70 Haw. at 525 , 778 P.2d at 715 (quoting State v. O’Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 527-28 , 616 P.2d 1383, 1390 (1980)) (emphasis in original); State v. Unea, 60 Haw. 504 , 591 P.2d 615 (1979).

2010Although “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence,” State v. Cabrera, 90 Hawai'i 359, 370 , 978 P.2d 797, 808 (1999) (citation omitted), based on the evidence discussed above, there was no rational basis on which the jury could conclude that Petitioner was justified in using force for the protection of others.

2010Although “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence,” State v. Cabrera, 90 Hawai'i 359, 370 , 978 P.2d 797, 808 (1999) (citation omitted), based on the evidence discussed above, there was no rational basis on which the jury could conclude that Petitioner was justified in using force for the protection of others.

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

2011Riveira, 59 Haw. at 153 , 577 P.2d at 797 (stating that the defendant was “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. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 271 , 492 P.2d 657, 667 (1971) (stating that because the defendant’s “testimony fairly raised the issue of self defense],] ... he was entitled to an instruction on that issue no matter how weak, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive the testimony might have appeared to the court”); State v. Pavao, 81 Hawai'i 142, 144 , 913 P.2d 553

2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).

2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).

2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).

2011(Brackets in original.)) In other words, here, “the parental discipline defense was available to [Respondent] ‘so long as some evidence was adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it might be, which was probative of the aforementioned elements.’ ” State v. Roman, 119 Hawai'i 468, 478 , 199 P.3d 57, 67 (2008) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 95 , 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)) (brackets and emphasis omitted).

2010See State v. Kupihea, 98 Hawai'i 196, 206 , 46 P.3d 498, 508 (2002) (holding that trial court was not required to include all statutory definitions in its instructions but, rather, “should refer only to those [definitions] having a rational basis in the evidence adduced at trial and not otherwise excludable”).

2010See State v. Kupihea, 98 Hawai'i 196, 206 , 46 P.3d 498, 508 (2002) (holding that trial court was not required to include all statutory definitions in its instructions but, rather, “should refer only to those [definitions] having a rational basis in the evidence adduced at trial and not otherwise excludable”).

2010In addition, pursuant to the trial court’s duty to instruct a jury properly, it is required to “state to [the jury] fully the law applicable to the facts.” State v. Feliciano, 62 Haw. 637, 643 , 618 P.2d 306, 310 (1980) (citation omitted).

2010In addition, pursuant to the trial court’s duty to instruct a jury properly, it is required to “state to [the jury] fully the law applicable to the facts.” State v. Feliciano, 62 Haw. 637, 643 , 618 P.2d 306, 310 (1980) (citation omitted).

2005In a criminal trial, an “accused is entitled to an instruction on every defense supported by the evidence, no matter how inconclusive the evidence may be, provided that evidence would support consideration of that issue by the jury.” State v. McMillen, 83 Hawai'i 264, 265 , 925 P.2d 1088, 1089 (1996). 5 “When jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.” State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 204 , 998 P.2d 479,

2005In a criminal trial, an “accused is entitled to an instruction on every defense supported by the evidence, no matter how inconclusive the evidence may be, provided that evidence would support consideration of that issue by the jury.” State v. McMillen, 83 Hawai'i 264, 265 , 925 P.2d 1088, 1089 (1996). 5 “When jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.” State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 204 , 998 P.2d 479,

2002Moreover, it is the trial judge's duty to insure that the jury instructions cogently explain the law applicable to the facts of the case and that "`the jury has proper guidance in its consideration of the issues before it.'" State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai`i 304, 311-12, 922 P.2d 358, 365-66 (1996) (quoting State v. Nakamura, 65 Haw. 74, 79 , 648 P.2d 183, 187 (1982)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tafoya, 91 Hawai`i 261, 982 P.2d 890 (1999).

2002Moreover, it is the trial judge's duty to insure that the jury instructions cogently explain the law applicable to the facts of the case and that "`the jury has proper guidance in its consideration of the issues before it.'" State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai`i 304, 311-12, 922 P.2d 358, 365-66 (1996) (quoting State v. Nakamura, 65 Haw. 74, 79 , 648 P.2d 183, 187 (1982)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tafoya, 91 Hawai`i 261, 982 P.2d 890 (1999).

2001In this regard, we note generally that a defendant is “entitled to an instruction on every defense supported by the evidence, no matter how inconclusive the evidence may be, provided that evidence would support consideration of that issue by the jury.” State v. McMillen, 83 Hawai'i 264, 265 , 925 P.2d 1088, 1089 (1996); see also State v. Ortiz, 93 Hawai'i 399, 404 , 4 P.3d 533, 538 (App.2000).

2001In this regard, we note generally that a defendant is “entitled to an instruction on every defense supported by the evidence, no matter how inconclusive the evidence may be, provided that evidence would support consideration of that issue by the jury.” State v. McMillen, 83 Hawai'i 264, 265 , 925 P.2d 1088, 1089 (1996); see also State v. Ortiz, 93 Hawai'i 399, 404 , 4 P.3d 533, 538 (App.2000).

2000However, we conclude the court was correct in refusing to give these instructions. *355 A. The defense of mistake of fact under HRS § 702-218(1) (1993) 16 is premised on the proposition that a factual mistake on the defendant’s part negates the required state of mind under the statute and thus relieves the defendant of criminal liability. 17 See State v. Cavness, 80 Hawai'i 460, 465 , 911 P.2d 95, 100 (App.1996) (holding that a “viable mistake of fact defense” to a criminal trespass offense requiring an intentional, knowing or reckless state of mind is established if the defendant negligently

2000However, we conclude the court was correct in refusing to give these instructions. *355 A. The defense of mistake of fact under HRS § 702-218(1) (1993) 16 is premised on the proposition that a factual mistake on the defendant’s part negates the required state of mind under the statute and thus relieves the defendant of criminal liability. 17 See State v. Cavness, 80 Hawai'i 460, 465 , 911 P.2d 95, 100 (App.1996) (holding that a “viable mistake of fact defense” to a criminal trespass offense requiring an intentional, knowing or reckless state of mind is established if the defendant negligently

1999Cabrera Was Not Entitled To A Jury Instruction Regarding Mistake Of Fact. “ ‘Our cases have firmly established that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” ’ ” State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i 325, 333, 966 P.2d 637, 645 (1998) (quoting State v. Kaiama, 81 Hawai'i 15, 24 , 911 P.2d 735, 744 (1996) (quoting Maelega, 80 Hawai'i at 178-79, 907 P.2d at 764-65 (citation omit