Haw. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 3.19A

In this case, in addition to other eyewitness

identification testimony, you have received evidence that the

defendant was identified by a witness at a so-called “show-up”

conducted by the police. While show-ups are permissible, they

are inherently suggestive police procedures. In determining the

reliability and accuracy of an identification made at a police

show-up, you must consider the totality of the circumstances

involved in the show-up, which may include the following:

[Whether the identification was the result of a suggestive

procedure, including actions taken or words spoken by police or

anyone else to the witness before, during, or after the

identification process;]

[Whether the police either indicated to the witness that a

suspect was present in the procedure or failed to warn the

witness that the perpetrator may or may not be in the

procedure;]

[Whether the defendant was required to wear distinctive

clothing that the perpetrator allegedly wore, or was handcuffed

or otherwise appeared to be in police custody;]

[Whether the witness was exposed to opinions, descriptions,

or identifications made by other witnesses, or to photographs,

news media, or to any other information that may have influenced

the independence of the identification;]

[Whether other participants in the show-up were similar in

appearance to the defendant;]

[Whether the witness’s identification was made

spontaneously and remained consistent thereafter;]

[and any other circumstance relating to the witness’s

ability to make an identification.]