Is there any reversible error in the Court of Appeal's instructions on attempted murder?

Appellant contends the court committed reversible error in its instructions on attempted murder. The court twice instructed the jury that attempted murder requires a specific intent. The court said the specific intent was included in the definition of the crime. In the course of defining murder, in the language of CALJIC Nos. 8.10 and 8.11 (1983 Revision), requested by appellant, the court gave both definitions of malice aforethought, express and implied. ¹¹ Insofar as this definition might have been applied to attempted murder, it was partially erroneous. Since attempted murder requires specific intent to kill, the definition of implied malice should have been omitted [181 Cal.App.3d 175] in relation to the attempted murder count. (People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 764-65, 175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446.)