How have courts treated a failure to specify that intoxication could be a defense to derivative but not direct liability for assault?

Given that the jury was informed that intoxication could serve as a defense to derivative, but not direct, liability for assault, we conclude the failure to specify that intoxication applied to the conspiracy theory was harmless under any standard of review. (See People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1089 [reasonable probability of different outcome standard applies to state law instructional error affecting defense; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to instructional error that prevents presentation of defense].)¹²