Does the court's comment that a jury would not be able to distinguish between perfect and imperfect self-defense is harmless?

Even if the court's statement were error, the error was harmless. When viewed in light of the written jury instructions and other instructions on both perfect and imperfect self-defense, the court's comment is not reasonably likely to have misled the jury on the honest, but unreasonable belief component of imperfect self-defense. (People v. Contreras (2013) 58 Cal.4th 123, 162 ["'"Jurors are not reasonably likely to draw, from bits of language in instructions,"'" conclusions contrary to repeated correct instructions as to the applicable law; "[n]o reasonable juror would have 'parsed'" the instructions in that manner].)