What is the standard of review for refusing to grant an instruction that is confusing?

The refusal was not error. A court "may ... refuse an instruction that is confusing." (People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1275, 270 Cal.Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251.) The standard of review is abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) In our view, the court could reasonably have concluded that this "special" instruction was indeed confusing inasmuch as it might have interfered with the altogether permissible and in fact mandatory "consideration" of the "facts and circumstances of the conviction in this case." Defendant argues that the "prejudice" from this "error" was "exacerbated" or "compounded." ²⁵ There was no error. Hence, there was no prejudice to be "exacerbated" or "compounded." ²⁶