constitute proposed instructions, “[i]t is not for us to speculate about what the jury would have done had it been properly instructed, for it is the jury’s role, not that of the appellate courts, to weigh the evidence.” Cabagbag, 127 Hawai'i at 321, 277 P.3d at 1046 (Acoba, J., dissenting) (citing State v. Kikuta, 125 Hawai'i 78, 89, 253 P.3d 639, 650 (2011)). Consequently, the court’s rejection of eyewitness identification instructions was not harmless. VII. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. 1 . The majority does not discuss whether the court abused its discretion in failing to gi g that an identification instruction was unnecessary because of defense counsel’s opening statement and cross-examination); Padilla, 57 Haw. at 162, 552 P.2d at 365 (<HOLDING>). 5 . A showup is defined as "[a] pretrial
holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive holding that an identification instruction was unnecessary because of the crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses and the arguments to the juiy holding that various aspects of the trial adequately directed the jurys attention to the identification evidence and made defendants requested instruction unnecessary holding that testimony regarding outofcourt identification was inadmissible where the state failed to ask the witnesses about the identification during its direct examination