Does Defendant have any grounds to argue that the jury instruction was legally deficient or biased?

Defendant does not argue that the jury instruction was legally deficient but that it was biased. "A party may not argue on appeal that an instruction correct in law was too general or incomplete, and thus needed clarification, without first requesting such clarification at trial." ( People v. Hillhouse , supra , 27 Cal.4th at p. 503, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754.) Defendant did not object to the jury instructions or to the prosecutions or witnesses use of the term during the trial. This claim is therefore forfeited.

The claim also lacks merit. Defendant argues that the use of the word "stake"

[233 Cal.Rptr.3d 420]

versus "stick" rendered the instructions argumentative and "invited the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence." (See People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 886, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) It did not do so. Defendants own counsel used both terms interchangeably throughout the trial, starting with his opening statement. The parties never disputed whether the object was to be a

[5 Cal.5th 102]