What is the standard of review for a defendant to appeal his conviction for assault with intent to pervert the course of justice?

Assuming defendant's claims are properly before us, that the trial court committed the alleged instructional errors, and that the standard of review is the test articulated in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, we conclude that any instructional errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and do not warrant reversal of either conviction. Therefore, we do not address the parties' arguments regarding defendant's failure to object to the self-defense instructions on the grounds asserted on appeal, the correctness of defendant's claims of instructional errors, or our standard of review.