How has the jury been instructed in the context of assault with a deadly weapon?

The above instructions fully and fairly instructed the jury that the defendant was guilty only if he attempted to use physical force upon the officer. This necessarily excluded a circumstance in which the defendant merely attempted to distract her attention. The jury was instructed on the general principles of law governing the case, as required by People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1. There was no sua sponte duty to do more. We note that People v. Vidaurri (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 450, 163 Cal.Rptr. 57 stated at page 462:

"Appellant contends that the court erred in that it failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, that an intent merely to frighten was insufficient for a finding of assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant cites no authority for the novel proposition that such an instruction is required of the trial court, sua sponte, and we know of none."

[159 Cal.App.3d 791] To the same effect is People v. Walton (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 76, 186 Cal.Rptr. 18.