Is there any need to restate or amend the words "subjectively" or "objectively" in the instructions in CALCRIM No. 520?

The trial court properly refused both of defendant's requests to restate already plain language in CALCRIM No. 520. While he claims inserting the word "subjectively" would clarify that the standard for knowledge of the risk of dangerousness was subjective rather than objective, the simple words "he knew" adequately conveyed the requirement of subjective knowledge. Inserting "subjectively" would be redundant, and the court properly may refuse adding repetitious instructions. (People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1134.)