Petitioner argued that the court’s instruction was plainly erroneous because the instruction did not cover HRS § 707-720(c) relating to the commission of a felony. It does not appear that the ICA addressed Petitioner’s argument regarding an allegedly erroneous definition of kidnapping, nor did Respondent address this issue in its memorandum in opposition. Petitioner did not object to the court’s kidnapping instruction at trial. Additionally, Petitioner acknowledged in his Reply Brief that “[t]his specific argument was not raised as a point of error in the opening brief.” Thus, we are not obligated to address Petitioner’s argument regarding the court’s purportedly erroneous kidnapping instruction. See In re Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc., 76 Hawai'i 1, 14 n. 5, 868 P.2d 419, 432 n. 5 (1994) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Hawaii Rules of Appellate
holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding arguments not raised on appeal waived holding that arguments raised for the first time in the reply briefs on appeal were deemed waived holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived