fairness of the trial itself" and "cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction." People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo.2005) (internal quotations omitted). 2. Discussion 176 Definitional instructions are generally proper when they follow the language of the applicable statute. See, eg., Riley v. People, 266 P.3d 1089, 1094 (Colo.2011); Idrogo v. People, 818 P.2d 752, 754 (Colo.1991); People v. R.V., 635 P.2d 892, 894 (Colo.1981); People v. Crawford, 191 Colo. 504, 507, 553 P.2d 827, 829 (1976); Blincoe v. People, 178 Colo. 34, 38, 494 P.2d 1285, 1287 (1972). While courts must tailor instructions to the facts at trial, instructions are erroneous only if, taken as a whole, they do not instruct the jury on the applicable law. Compare Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 754-56 (<HOLDING>), and Leonard v. People, 149 Colo. 360, 374-75,
holding that when both parties agree that the facts of the case entitled defendant to a selfdefense instruction failing to so instruct the jury was error holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify holding that there was no error at all much less plain error in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error