how Appellant could lose and regain the right to act in self-defense. Although we find the instruction on escalation was erroneous, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant was not entitled to such an instruction at all, as there was no evidence raising the issue of escalation. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, withdrawal was not in issue either, for the same reason. A. An allegation that the members were improperly instructed is an issue we review de novo. United States v. Ober, 66 M.J. 393, 405 (C.A.A.F.2008). In regard to form, a military judge has wide discretion in choosing the instructions to give but has a duty to provide an accurate, complete, and intelligible statement of the law. See United States v. Wolford, 62 M.J. 418, 419 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Medina, 69 M.J.
recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions recognizing that instructions must be correct and complete recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury includes the right to a complete and correct charge of the law so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error