fact affirmatively rejected the court’s invitation to consider the instruction’s applicability. Additionally, the State argues, the evidence did not generate a self defense instruction, because appellant’s recorded statement to the police and her trial testimony showed that she understood the spitting to be accidental, and appellant did not produce testimony that she believed that she was in immediate or imminent danger of bodily harm. Analysis We agree with the State that any error on the part of the trial court in failing to give a self defense instruction is not only not preserved for our review, but is affirmatively waived. First, appellant waived her rights on this issue when she did not request a self defense instruction. See Tull v. State, 230 Md. 152, 156, 186 A.2d 205 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Martin v. State, 174 Md.App. 510, 520, 922
holding that instruction that omitted elements of crime that defense had conceded was error although not plain error holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error 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