instruct the jury on all elements of self-defense. See Rule 5-608(A) NMRA (requiring that the “court must instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction”); Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, 1112, 130 N.M. 670, 29 P.3d 1071 (discussing the “well-established principle that adequate instruction on self-defense is the duty of the courts where it finds support in the evidence”). The deficiency in the given instructions did not comport with the district court’s position that Defendant be able to present his theory that he was defending himself and Crouch against all three assailants. The court’s failure to adequately and accurately describe Defendant’s theory of defense violated Defendant’s fundamental rights. Cf. State v. Coffin, 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 13, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 (<HOLDING>). {29} In addition to failing to present
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in giving jury instructions that taken together fairly and adequately conveyed the issues to the jury 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 it is not reversible error to reject a defendants proposed instruction on his theory of the ease if other instructions adequately cover the defense theory internal quotation marks omitted holding that jury instructions that included both victims and their alleged threatening actions adequately and accurately reflected the defendants selfdefense theory and were not in error holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory