What is the abuse of the standard for instructing a jury?

An abuse of discretion standard is used to review a trial court's decision to instruct, or not to instruct, a deliberating jury. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 745-746.) Under this standard, the trial court's decision "must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. [Citations.]" (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316, italics original.)

A deliberating jury may seek further clarification on any point of law arising in the case. ( 1138.) A trial court has a duty to provide the jury with the requested information, and it maintains discretion to determine what additional explanations are sufficient when the original instructions are full and complete. (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 985.) A trial court is not required to always elaborate on the standard instructions, and doing so is often risky. (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 97.) However, a trial court cannot "figuratively throw up its hands and tell the jury it cannot help. It must at least consider how it can best aid the jury. It should decide as to each jury question whether further explanation is desirable, or whether it should merely reiterate the instructions already given." (Ibid.)