What is the test for instructing a jury on mental impairment as a result of domestic violence?

We begin with the People's argument that defendant's claim of instructional error has been forfeited. The parties agree that the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on mental impairment as a result of intimate partner battering. (People v. Ocegueda (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1406.) However, defendant urges that the trial court, having undertaken to give such an instruction, had a duty to do so correctly. (Ibid.) According to defendant, the instruction given here was incorrect in law because, by identifying the alleged mental impairment as anxiety disorder, it erroneously precluded the jury from considering the effects of intimate partner battering in deciding whether she acted with premeditation and deliberation.