What is the test for a claim that a trial court failed to properly instruct on the applicable principles of law?

"[A] claim that a trial court failed to properly instruct on the applicable principles of law is reviewed de novo." (People v. Martin (2000) 68 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111.)

Page 5

" 'The relevant inquiry [when instructional error is claimed] is whether, "in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled to defendant's prejudice." ' " (People v. O'Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th, 944, 991.)

Whether or not to give a particular instruction is a predominately legal question, which is also reviewed de novo. (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1217.) " 'A flight instruction is proper whenever evidence of the circumstances of [a] defendant's departure from the crime scene . . . logically permits an inference that his movement was motivated by guilty knowledge.' " (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 522.)

As a general rule, failure to object to an instruction forfeits appellate review of it. (People v. Rivera (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 141, 146.) An exception arises, however, if the substantial rights of appellant are affected. ( 1259.)

In this case, appellant did not simply fail to object to specific jury instructions proposed by the People or the trial court. Rather, appellant offered the specific instructions now contested, engaged in discussions with the trial court over those instructions, and affirmatively confirmed that he was "satisfied with the jury instructions." Normally, such conduct forfeits any objections on appeal. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 326.)