Does a court have a duty to define technical terms that have meanings peculiar to the law?

"Although trial courts, generally, have a duty to define technical terms that have meanings peculiar to the law, there is no duty to clarify, amplify, or otherwise instruct on commonly understood words or terms used in statutes or jury instructions. 'When a word or phrase "'is commonly understood by those familiar with the English language and is not used in a technical sense peculiar to the law, the court is not required to give an instruction as to its meaning in the absence of a request.'" [Citations.] A word or phrase having a technical, legal meaning requiring clarification by the court is one that has a

Page 9

definition that differs from its nonlegal meaning. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015, 1022-1023.)