or subject that person to a sexual offense; [or] (e) Terrorize that person or a third person[.] (Emphasis added.) Petitioner stated that “[i]n his case, for both trials, the court gave the following definition of kidnapping, which covered only [HRS § 707-720(d) and HRS § 707-720(e)]: “ ‘A person commits kidnapping if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person with intent to inflict bodily injury upon that person or terrorize that person.’ ocedure Rule 28(d) (2005) (providing that “[t]he reply brief shall be confined to matters presented in the answering brief’). However, because Petitioner’s assertion relates to jury instructions, whether the court’s instruction was plain error is briefly discussed. See State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai'i 327, 335, 141 P.3d 974, 982 (2006) (<HOLDING>)” and, thus, “the same standard of review is to
holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error holding that the plain error and harmless error standards of review merge in the ease of jury instructions because the duty to properly instruct the jury lies with the trial court holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial