we recognize that Mundon did not raise a timely objection to the trial court’s failure to provide a unanimity instruction or to the prosecution’s failure to elect a specific act. However, we have held that it “may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant.” Arceo, 84 Hawai'i at 33, 928 P.2d at 875 (internal brackets and ellipses omitted). We have also stated that “it may be plain error for a trial court to fail to give a [jury] instruction even when neither the prosecution nor the defendant have requested it ... because ... the ultimate responsibility properly to instruct the jury lies with the [trial] court.” State v. Kinnane, 79 Hawai'i 46, 50, 897 P.2d 973, 977 (1995) (emphasis added); see also Arceo, 84 Hawai'i at 33, 928 P.2d at 875 (<HOLDING>). It is well-settled that “the right of an
holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat