note that the trial court is not required to provide all evidence admitted at trial to the jury during deliberations. See, e.g., State v. Kassebeer, 118 Hawai'i 493, 506, 193 P.3d 409, 422 (2008) (reviewing trial court's decision to allow handgun that was admitted into evidence into jury room for abuse of discretion). 11 .We review both questions de novo under the right/wrong standard. See State v. Moore, 82 Hawai'i 202, 217, 921 P.2d 122, 137 (1996) (“[Wjhere the admissibility of evidence is determined by application of the hearsay rule, there can be only one correct result, and 'the appropriate standard for appellate review is the right/ wrong standard.' ” (quoting Kealoha v. County of Hawai'i, 74 Haw. 308, 319, 844 P.2d 670, 675 (1993))); Kalaola, 124 Hawai'i at 49, 237 P.3d at 1115 (<HOLDING>). 12 . Roberts was abrogated by Crawford but is
holding constitutional questions reviewed de novo under the rightwrong standard holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard recognizing de novo standard of review holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo