How has the jury been instructed on the prosecution's theory that defendant committed involuntary manslaughter by performing a lawful act with criminal negligence?

instructed on the applicable law. " ( People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1089, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) As explained below, we find no error in the jury instructions.

1. No Instruction Required on Distinct Acts Forming the Basis of "Construction of a Residence"

The trial court instructed the jury on the prosecution's theory that defendant committed involuntary manslaughter by performing a lawful act with criminal negligence. The instruction regarding the elements of involuntary manslaughter specified the lawful act that defendant performed as "construction of a residence" in Milpitas, California. Defendant argues this instruction was inadequate because the trial court should have further defined for the jury what distinct acts were included within "construction of a residence." But the instruction is a pattern jury instruction that correctly states the applicable law ( CALCRIM No. 581 ), and defendant never proposed an alternative or additional instruction further defining "construction of a residence."⁴ Since defendant did not propose a different or additional instruction defining the term, he forfeited any claim of instructional error. ( People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 12281229, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254 [failure to request an instruction waives the issue on appeal].)