State. Robertson v. State, 112 Md.App. 366, 385, 685 A.2d 805 (1996) (citation omitted). Appellant contends that the instruction given by the trial court failed to focus on his theory of defense — that he was merely present in the house and did not “possess” the contraband. We disagree and hold that the given instructions adequately addressed appellant’s theory of the case. In instructing the jury, the court essentially utilized the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions. See MCPJI 4:24. “[GJenerally, the pattern jury instructions suffice and trial judges usually may rely on them.” Bayne v. State, 98 Md.App. 149, 160, 632 A.2d 476 (1993). Of course, situations may arise when a pattern jury instruction is not adequate or complete. See e.g., Green, 119 Md.App. at 562, 705 A.2d 133 (<HOLDING>). The instant case, however, does not present
holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it holding that it was not plain error for the court not to give a self defense jury instruction where the defendant did not request one holding that pattern jury instruction was inadequate because it did not encompass the valid defense asserted by the defendant holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel recognizing district court does not err by giving instruction that tracks pattern instruction and correctly states the law