Can the defense argue that the newly defined offenses described in the supplemental instructions for sexual assault have changed the outcome of the trial?

Moreover, we can conceive of no argument the defense could have made regarding the newly defined offenses that could have altered the outcome of the trial. Appellant's defense was not that he lacked intent to commit any particular form of sexual assault, but that he lacked intent to commit any such assault. As the trial court also pointed out in denying appellant's new trial motion, appellant's defense was that he entered the apartment with innocent intent, to engage in a consensual sexual encounter. All the offenses described in the supplemental instructions required an absence of consent that was contrary to appellant's defense. Appellant was not " 'unfairly prevented from arguing his or her defense to the jury' " or "substantially misled in formulating and presenting arguments." (People v. Ardoin, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 131.)