What are the implications of the Court's instructions on mutual combat, contrived self-defense, and voluntary intoxication?

Defendant advances four claims of error relating to the trial court's instructions on mutual combat, contrived self-defense, imperfect self-defense and voluntary intoxication, detailed post. The People argue that defendant forfeited his claims of instructional error by failing to object during trial. As defendant contends, however, where a "defendant asserts that an instruction is incorrect in law an objection is not required. (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976-977, fn. 7; 1259 ['The appellate court may ... review any instruction given, ... even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.'].) We apply this principle to all such instructional claims except to those where we explicitly conclude that defendant's failure to seek modification or clarification of an otherwise correct instruction resulted in forfeiture." (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 875, fn. 11.) We need not decide in this case whether the forfeiture doctrines apply to any of defendant's instructional error claims because we conclude that even assuming error, defendant suffered no prejudice. (People v. Johnson (2016) 62 Cal.4th 600, 639.)