In People v. Nieto Benitez (1992) 4 Cal.4th 91, the court held that "an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to human life" and "an act that involves a high degree of probability that it will result in death" amount to the same standard. Thus it is unnecessary to instruct with both. ( Id. at p. 104.) However, it is preferable to use the expression "dangerous to human life," as the standard instructions do. (Ibid.) In that case, the defendant argued the trial court "misstated the law because its (jury) instructions omitted a requirement that defendant commit the act with a high probability that death will result. " (Id. at p. 111.) The Supreme Court disagreed and held that "the two linguistic formulations -- 'an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life' and 'an act committed with a high probability that it will result in death' are equivalent ...." (Id. at p. 111.)