eyewitness identification instructions. However, as explained infra, eyewitness identification instructions were necessary for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony. In light of the crucial role of Kincaid’s testimony, plainly there was no basis for refusing to give such instructions. 2 . The dissenting opinion as to Part II in Cabag-bag would have required that the instruction must be given sua sponte by the trial court, even when not requested by the defendant, if eyewitness identification evidence is central to the case. Cabagbag, 127 Hawai'i at 319, 277 P.3d at 1044 (Acoba, J., dissenting). 3 . As used herein, the dissenting opinion in Ca-bagbag refers to the dissenting opinion to Part II of the opinion in that case. 4 . See also Okumura, 78 Hawai'i at 405, 894 P.2d at 102 (<HOLDING>); Pahio, 58 Haw. at 331, 568 P.2d at 1206
holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was crossexamined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsels opening statement holding the error harmless due to eyewitness corroboration of the victims testimony holding that any deficiency in counsels failure to object to alleged hearsay testimony that repeated statement of witness regarding identity of murder perpetrator did not prejudice defendant and thus was not ineffective assistance when testimony was cumulative of other eyewitness testimony holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification