Is a defendant's contention forfeited for failure to request a modified instruction?

At the outset, defendant's contention is forfeited for failure to request a modified instruction. He may not now complain that the instruction was too general or incomplete without first requesting appropriate clarifying or amplifying language. (See People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1348 [where instruction is a correct statement of the law, a defendant who fails to request different language forfeited his claim that the instruction should have been modified].)

Defendant nevertheless maintains his challenge is not forfeited because the jury was instructed with an incorrect statement of law. He argues the instruction failed to inform the jury that the standard is objective, but the jury may consider the defendant and witnesses' subjective perspectives. He avers the trial court should have given a modified version of the instruction given in People v. Thongvilay (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 71, 84. There the court instructed: "The issue of whether the defendant believed that he had reached a place of temporary safety may be considered by the jury. [] But the standard to be applied to the underlying question, however, is an objective one; that is, whether the defendant has actually reached a place of temporary safety rather than whether the defendant believed that he had reached such a safe location." We are not persuaded.

Even absent a request, a trial court in a criminal case must instruct on the general principles of law as raised by the evidence. (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154.) The general principles of law are principles "closely and openly connected with the facts" and necessary for the jury's understanding of the case. (Ibid.) Whether a jury instruction correctly states the law is reviewed de novo. (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088.) If possible, instructions should be interpreted to support the judgment if reasonably susceptible to such an interpretation. (Ibid.)