the Court was confident that the instructions as a whole adequately addressed the elements of unlawfulness). {33} We hold that fundamental error occurred when the district court submitted jury instructions that did not direct the jury to consider Defendant’s theory of defense regarding McCormick, relieved the State’s burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and misstated the law regarding an attack by multiple assailants. After reviewing the entire record and placing the jury instructions in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court would fail to do substantial justice if it allowed Defendant’s conviction to stand on jury instructions that did not inform the jury of his theory of self-defense. See Orosco, 113 N.M. at 784, 833 P.2d at 1150 (<HOLDING>); State v. Mantelli, 2002-NMCA-033, ¶ 46, 131
holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice recognizing plain or fundamental error recognizing fundamental error as an exception to the general rule of preservation recognizing that the rule of fundamental error applies when substantial justice has not been done