How have courts dealt with a discrepancy between the written and orally delivered instructions in a trial?

The risk of a discrepancy between the orally delivered and the written instructions exists in every trial, and verdicts are not undermined by the mere fact the trial court misspoke. (People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 200, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 153, 226 P.3d 276.) [W]e often have held that when erroneous oral instructions are

[182 Cal.Rptr.3d 87]

supplemented by correct written ones, we assume the jury followed the written instructions, particularly when, as here, the jury is instructed that the written version is controlling. (People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1132, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614, 189 P.3d 880 ; see People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 687, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640 [noting that the jury was instructed to be governed only by [each] instruction in its final wording, whether printed, typed or handwritten ].) Here, the jury was instructed just before the beginning of deliberations that it would be provided with the instruction in written form and that the instructions may be typed, printed or handwritten. Portions may have been added or deleted.... Every part of the text of an instruction, whether typed, printed, or handwritten is of equal importance. You are to be governed only by the instruction in its final wording.