P.

DISCUSSION

I. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood the Jury Misunderstood the Elements of Assault

with Intent to Commit Rape Appellant contends the trial court‟s instructions led the jury to believe it could find him guilty of assault with intent to commit rape without proof he assaulted the victim. His claim is without merit. “It is settled that, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law that are commonly or closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and that are necessary for the jury‟s understanding of the case. [Citations.]” (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047.) “[I]nstructions are not considered in isolation. Whether instructions are correct and adequate is determined by consideration of the entire charge to the jury. [Citation.]” (People v. Holt (1997)

All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

2 15 Cal.4th 619, 677.) In considering a claim of instructional error, the issue is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the” court‟s instructions. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 663.) We presume the jurors are intelligent and capable…