Because testimony from family members of crime victims is not per se disallowed and Uyesugi's substantial rights were not prejudiced, we hold that the circuit court did not plainly err. In State v. Edwards, 81 Hawai`i 293, 300, 916 P.2d 703, 710 (1996), the defendant was charged with and convicted of the brutal murder, sexual assault, and robbery of a sixty-seven year-old woman. On appeal, the defendant argued that "the daughter of the deceased . . . gave a detailed and moving account that personalized the deceased i[n] a sympathetic light, giving a romantic and pleasant picture of the deceased's life and the interactions of the deceased with her own immediate family."

1. Photographs of the deceased's body that depict the nature of the deceased's injuries are admissible evidence regardless of whether or not the defense concedes the nature and manner in which the deceased was killed. State v. Edwards, 81 [Hawai'i] 293, [81 Hawai'i 293], 916 P.2d 703 (1996). 2.

In "weighing probative value versus prejudicial effect, a variety of matters must be considered, including the need for the evidence, the efficacy of alternative proof, and the degree to which the evidence probably will rouse the jury to overmastering hostility." State v. Edwards, 81 Hawai'i 293, 297-98, 916 P.2d 703, 707-78 (1996) (brackets, ellipses and citations omitted)). In Riveira, the supreme court held that a burglary victim's impact testimony on the crime's impact on the victim and her family had "great potential to unfairly prejudice Riveira" and was inadmissible under HRE Rule 403 because the "evidence generated sympathy for the family and impelled hostility" to Riveira.

the defendant has the burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and must meet the following two-part test: 1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. State v. Edwards, 81 Haw. 293, 300, 916 P.2d 703, 710 (1996) (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Haw. 419, 439-40, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)). The prosecution defends trial counsel's strategy on the grounds that the evidence of Tafoya's prior bad acts and criminal convictions was intentionally introduced in order to bolster the subjective reasonableness of his self-defense argument.

In an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the question is: "When viewed as a whole, was the assistance provided to the defendant within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases?" State v. Fukusaku, 85 Haw. 462, 479, 946 P.2d 32, 49 (1997) (quoting State v. Edwards, 81 Haw. 293, 300, 916 P.2d 703, 710 (1996)). This court has also held that

This court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) have affirmed convictions in which the prosecution relied upon hair and fiber evidence. See, e.g., State v. Edwards, 81 Haw. 293, 296, 916 P.2d 703, 706 (1996); State v. Liuafi, 1 Haw. App. 625, 634, 623 P.2d 1271, 1277 (1981). In State v. Wilkins, 1 Haw. App. 546, 622 P.2d 620 (1981), the ICA noted that trial courts have broad discretion in admitting expert testimony and cited federal case law as follows: [T]he Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in an appeal of a bank robbery conviction upheld the admission into evidence of expert testimony that hairs recovered from the articles used by the appellant in the robbery were "microscopically like" hair samples taken from the appellant, even though there was admitted to be an insufficient basis to conclude that the hairs did, in fact, come from the defendant.Id.

The pools of blood are only shown from a distance and are not of a particularly graphic nature. The photographs do not rise to the level of gruesomeness that would have the effect of overwhelming the jury's ability to fairly decide the case, and are much less gruesome than photographs that Hawai‘i courts have found to be admissible. See, e.g., State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai‘i 325, 329 n.7, 966 P.2d 637, 641 n.7 (1998) (dismissing defendant's objection that court erred in permitting display of fourteen color photographs depicting injuries inflicted with a broken vodka bottle to the face and head of an attempted murder victim, and noting that "[c]ourts, traditionally, have great discretion in admitting such evidence"); State v. Edwards, 81 Hawai‘i 293, 916 P.2d 703 (1996) (holding that photographs of injuries inflicted to decedent's face and entire nude body were admittedly gruesome but not unfairly prejudicial); State v. Klafta, 73 Haw. 109, 831 P.2d 512 (1992) (upholding lower court's admission of photographs of victim's condition when found, where victim was an abandoned sixteen-month-old infant, dehydrated, dirty, bruised, and infested with maggots).Considering both the relatively mild nature of these photographs as well as their established relevance and probative value, this court concludes that the photographs were not unfairly prejudicial and, thus, were admissible. Accordingly, the circuit court's decision to admit the photographs was not an abuse of discretion.

Photographs may be relevant to corroborate testimony. State v. Edwards, 81 Hawai‘i 293, 916 P.2d 703 (1996) Exhibits 4 and 5, photographs depicting the Blooms in front of their home in Ewa Beach and sightseeing, corroborated the narrative that the Blooms were searching for a beach near their new home on the day of the alleged assault.

Hence, defense counsel's failure to object to the use of the word "victim" did not "result in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense[,]" and therefore, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Edwards, 81 Haw. 293, 300, 916 P.2d 703, 710 (1996) (citation and internal block quote format omitted). (3) Defendant also asserts that he "received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not object when Officer [Jason] Arbles testified that he had `determined there was a sexual assault.'" Opening Brief at 26.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Edwards, 81 Haw. 293, 300, 916 P.2d 703, 710 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Haw. 419, 440, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)). Defendant argues that because Officer Kaleohano was unavailable to testify at trial, defense counsel should have requested a continuance of trial to allow for the officer's testimony.