context: 150 Because, under these cireum-stances, the initial aggressor, combat by agreement, and provocation concepts were superfluous and, as such, neither imposed any extra burden on defendant nor interfered with his self-defense theory, there is no reasonable possibility that their inclusion in the instruction contributed to his conviction. Consequently the error was not plain.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 852 P.2d 1307, 1307
citation_a.parenthetical: inclusion of an unnecessary instruction did not require reversal because it "did not pose any barrier to the jury giving full consideration to the defendant's theory of defense"
citation_a.sentence: See Baca, 852 P.2d at 1307 (inclusion of an unnecessary instruction did not require reversal because it "did not pose any barrier to the jury giving full consideration to the defendant's theory of defense"); see also People v. Manzanares, 942 P.2d 1235, 1241 (Colo.App.1996) (where there was no evidence that the defendant initiated the fight and the prosecutor did not mention the instruction in closing argument, unwarranted initial aggressor instruction was harmless).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 942 P.2d 1235, 1241
citation_b.parenthetical: where there was no evidence that the defendant initiated the fight and the prosecutor did not mention the instruction in closing argument, unwarranted initial aggressor instruction was harmless
citation_b.sentence: See Baca, 852 P.2d at 1307 (inclusion of an unnecessary instruction did not require reversal because it "did not pose any barrier to the jury giving full consideration to the defendant's theory of defense"); see also People v. Manzanares, 942 P.2d 1235, 1241 (Colo.App.1996) (where there was no evidence that the defendant initiated the fight and the prosecutor did not mention the instruction in closing argument, unwarranted initial aggressor instruction was harmless).