The judge may not properly “refuse[] to tailor [an] instruction to the fact of the case.“ (People v. Hall (1980) 28 C3d 143, 159; see also People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 C4th 903, 924; People v. Fudge (1994) 7 C4th 1075, 1110; People v. Woods (1991) 226 CA3d 1037, 1054-55 [court has duty to “tailor instructions to fit the facts“ ]; U.S. v. Blankenship (7th Cir. 1992) 970 F2d 283, 286 [buyer-seller instruction should be tailored to facts].)
Moreover, the judge is obligated to correct or tailor an instruction to the particular facts of the case even though the instruction submitted by the defense was incorrect. (People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 49; People v. Whitehorn (1963) 60 Cal.2d 256, 265; People v, Cole (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1446; People v. Bolden (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1591, 1597.) “[A] court may give only such instruction as are correct statements of the law. [Citation].” (People v. Gordon (90) 50 C3d 1223, 1275.) This duty requires the trial court to correct or tailor an instruction to the particular facts of the case even though the instruction submitted by the defense was incorrect. (People v. Fudge (1994) 7 C4th 1075, 1110 [judge must tailor instruction to conform with law rather than deny outright]; see also People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 C4th 903, 924 [“trial court erred in failing to tailor defendant’s proposed instruction to give the jury some guidance regarding the use of the other crimes evidence, rather than denying the instruction outright”]; People v. Coates (1984) 152 CA3d 665, 670-71; People v. Bolden (1990) 217 CA3d 1591, 1597; (People v. Cummings (1993) 4 C4th 1233, 1337; see also People v. Castillo (1997) 16 C4th 1009 [even when a trial court instructs on a matter on which it has no sua sponte duty to instruct, it must do so correctly]; People v. Malone (88) 47 C3d 1, 49 [252 CR 525]; People v. Montiel (1993) 5 C4th 877, 942.)
This duty to tailor and correct should apply with equal force to generic pattern instructions. See e.g., CC 570 BENCH NOTES, Instructional Duty [“If the victim’s gender identity or sexual orientation raises specific issues concerning whether provocation was objectively reasonable, give an instruction tailored to those issues on request….”]; see also CC 603, 704, 705, 730.)
