Is there any case law where a defendant has argued that instructions B and C are inconsistent with instruction A?

[48 Cal.App.4th 332] The defendant in Darby contended on appeal that instructions B and C were inconsistent with instruction A. The Court of Appeal said that the trial court was generous in giving instructions B and C, and that even if there was a conflict there was no cause for reversal because instruction A was the correct statement of the law. (114 Cal.App.2d at pp. 435-436, 250 P.2d 743.) In People v. Watson, supra, 15 Cal.App.3d at page 38, 92 Cal.Rptr. 860, the court held that it is not error for a trial court to refuse to give Darby instructions B and C, since those instructions set forth a more limited definition of conflict of interest than that specified in the statute while instruction A is a complete and correct statement of law. Pursuant to these authorities we reject defendant's claim that the trial court should have given Darby instructions B and C.