How have courts interpreted the definition of "unlawful touching" in an assault case?

used against an assault with fists. Such an assault does not justify the use of a deadly weapon in self-defense"], overruled on another ground in People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 898.) A fortiori, a rude or angry unlawful touching which falls short of the use of fists cannot justify the use of a deadly weapon. Because the evidence does not support a finding of self-defense based on a fear of an unlawful touching, it was not error to omit the definition of "unlawful touching." For the same reason, counsel's failure to request a definition did not constitute ineffective assistance.

Defendant admitted a serious prior felony conviction for criminal threats. ( 422.) Before sentencing, he submitted an invitation to the court to strike the prior conviction for sentencing purposes, pursuant to section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504 (Romero). The court discussed the various factors it weighed in considering whether to strike the prior conviction and concluded that defendant fell within the spirit of the three strikes law. The court denied the request. Defendant now contends that this was an abuse of discretion.