Is a defendant prejudiced by a defense counsel's claim that they failed to request a pinpoint instruction on prior threats?

Appellant was not prejudiced by defense counsel's claimed failure to request the pinpoint instruction on prior threats because "[b]oth the defense counsel and the prosecutor thoroughly aired this subject in argument. Defense counsel repeatedly argued the prior assault colored [appellant's] perception of the second . . . ." (People v. Gonzales (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1664.) In response to this argument, the prosecutor attacked its factual premise, questioning why appellant did not "corroborate his statement that he was so upset and so in fear for his life after the crowbar incident." "The concept at issue here is closer to rough and ready common sense than abstract legal principle. It is also fully consistent with the otherwise complete self-defense instructions given by the court. [Fn. omitted.] It is unlikely the jury hearing the evidence, the instructions given and the argument of counsel would have failed to give the defendant's position full consideration." (People v. Gonzales, at p. 1665.)

Page 7