How have instructions been interpreted in the context of a jury trial?

must determine whether their meaning was objectionable as communicated to the jury.... The meaning of instructions is no longer determined under a strict test of whether a 'reasonable juror' could have understood the charge as the defendant asserts, but rather under the more tolerant test of whether there is a 'reasonable likelihood' that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the law in light of the instructions given, the entire record of trial, and the arguments of counsel." (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 276-277 (Dieguez).) Balbuena insists the instructions were not ambiguous; they were simply wrong. Since they are legally wrong, she concludes, we need not review the instructions from the vantage point of the hypothetically reasonable juror. She is mistaken.