How have courts treated a defendant's claim that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on the elements of rape and sodomy generally?

To the extent defendant claims that the trial court erred by refusing his request to instruct on the elements of murder, rape, and sodomy generally, and not solely on the penetration element of rape and sodomy, we dismiss his claim "as not properly raised: it is perfunctorily asserted without argument in support." (People v. Ashmus, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 985, fn. 15, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214.)

26. To the extent defendant claims the jury could exercise mercy apart from the evidence, and should have been instructed accordingly, the contention lacks merit. A jury may not exercise mercy in this fashion, and therefore should not be instructed that it could. (People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 808-809, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330.)