What is the standard of review applied to a jury's interpretation of a common law definition?

"An appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to any decision by a trial court to instruct, or not to instruct, in its exercise of its supervision over a deliberating jury. [Citations.]" (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 745746.) "[T]he trial 'court has a primary duty to help the jury understand the legal principles it is asked to apply. [Citation.] This does not mean the court must always elaborate on the standard instructions. Where the original instructions are themselves full and complete, the court has discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury's request for information. [Citation.] Indeed, comments diverging from the standard are often risky. [Citation.]' [Citation.] However,'[a] definition of a commonly used term may nevertheless be required if the jury exhibits confusion over the term's meaning. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v.

Page 22

Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1015; see also People v. Montero (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1179.)