When defense counsel objected to the modified CALCRIM No. 960 instruction being read to the jury on the defense of consent to simple battery?

Defense counsel did not object that the modified CALCRIM No. 960 read to the jury was incomplete or request the trial court give the jury a special instruction on the defense of consent to simple battery. Generally speaking, failure to object to an instruction as incomplete or to request a pinpoint instruction forfeits an appellate challenge to the instruction. (People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 993.) However, even in the absence of an objection we may review the correctness of an instruction if error would affect the defendant's substantial rights. ( 1259; People v. Johnson, at p. 993.)

"'It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case. [Citations.]'" (People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239.) "The trial court must instruct sua sponte as to defenses '"'that the

Page 14

defendant is relying on . . . or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case.'"' [Citation.]" (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1224.)