How has Special Instruction No. 1 been interpreted by a jury in a sexual assault case?

First, to the extent Special Instruction No. 1 would have advised the jury appellant was not guilty if the act of oral copulation was "against her will" because of physical force, i.e., because said act was the result of physical force applied by a person (e.g., T.) to appellant, Special Instruction No. 2, adequately covered that issue. Special Instruction No. 2, reasonably understood, told the jury a defendant was not guilty if the act was "accomplished by force," and that that phrase meant a person uses enough physical force "to overcome the other person's will." A trial court is under no duty to give repetitive instructions. (Cf. People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1134.)

Moreover, the jury, having been given Special Instruction No. 2, convicted appellant. To the extent Special Instruction No. 1 would have advised the jury appellant's act of oral copulation was "against her will" because of physical force, no prejudice resulted from the trial court's refusal to give Special Instruction No. 1 because the factual question posed by that omitted instruction was necessarily resolved adversely to appellant under another, properly given instruction, i.e., Special Instruction No. 2. (See People v. Kobrin (1995) 11 Cal.4th 416, 428, fn. 8.)