How have the courts dealt with a defendant's challenge to instructions given to the jury in an assault case?

It is important to emphasize here that defendant does not contend that the instructions were an incorrect statement of law or that substantial evidence did not support them. The same prosecution evidence that we found to provide adequate notice would have supported giving the instructions if the prosecution had requested them prior to closing arguments, as "instructions delineating an aiding and abetting theory of liability must be given when such derivative culpability 'form[s] a part of the prosecution's theory of criminal liability and substantial evidence supports the theory.' [Citation.]" (People v. Delgado (2013) 56 Cal.4th 480, 488.) Thus, the only issues raised by defendant's challenge concern the timing of the instructions.

Under sections 1093 to 1094, the trial court has wide discretion concerning the timing of its instructions to the jury. (People v. Ardoin (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 102, 127-128 (Ardoin ).) Section1093, subdivision (f), provides for reading requested instructions to the jury after argument, and also permits the court to give instructions without request

Page 11