Does the Attorney General have forfeited his claim of instructional error by failing to request clarifying or amplifying language?

The Attorney General contends that defendant forfeited his claim of instructional error by failing to request clarifying or amplifying language. The Attorney General correctly notes that " 'a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.' " (People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 570.) Here, however, defendant does not complain that the unanimity instructions were too general or incomplete. Rather, defendant contends that CALCRIM No. 3501 was an incorrect unanimity instruction in light of the evidence presented at trial.

Page 10

The Attorney General has failed to show forfeiture, and we now address the merits of defendant's claim.