Fifth, by contrast to the instructions on the counts of
second degree murder and attempted murder requiring proof of
the appellant’s participation as the sole principal, the instructions
on the joint counts of manslaughter and aggravated assault,
limited consideration of the liability of the co-accused to aiding,
abetting, and s. 21(2).
 Sixth, the substantive instructions on s. 21(2) referred specifically to counts two and four, the counts charging the four
co-accused but not the appellant jointly with manslaughter and
aggravated assault. These instructions made no reference to the
offences of second degree murder and attempted murder, by name
or count number.
 In the end, I am satisfied that the inadvertent
misstatement that s. 21(2) applied to “all counts”, which
attracted no objection at trial, and the issues related to the
Crown’s misstatement on s. 229(a)( ii), were harmless errors,
devoid of any prejudicial potential. No harm. No foul.
Ground #2: The “Rolled Up” Instruction
 This ground of appeal also alleges error in the charge to
the jury, but this time because of something not said. The focus
once again is on the mental or fault element in murder, more specifically, about something, the appellant says, the jurors should
have been directed to take into account in assessing the adequacy
of the Crown’s proof of the mental element but were not invited
to do so.
 This claim of error does not require further reference to
the evidence about the circumstances of the offences charged, but
is informed by brief mention of the positions of the parties at trial
and the instructions of the trial judge about how the jury was to
approach proof of the mental element in murder.
The positions of the parties at trial
 At a pre-charge conference, defence counsel sought
instructions on intoxication, self-defence and provocation. He
also asked the trial judge to provide a “rolled up” instruction
to the jury, including reference to evidence of intoxication and
 The trial Crown agreed that intoxication should be left to
the jury. He submitted that if the trial judge concluded that the
statutory partial defence of provocation had an air of reality, then
a “rolled up” charge could include reference to provocation.
 The trial judge concluded that there was no air of reality to
self-defence. He did not instruct the jury on the statutory partial
defence of provocation.