How have the courts interpreted the doctrine of "willfully false" testimony in the context of an assault case?

Appellant contends the trial court erred in giving CALJIC 2.21--that a witness willfully false in one material part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others--and CALJIC 1.20, defining the word "willfully." Relying on People v. Lescallett, 123 Cal.App.3d 487, 176 Cal.Rptr. 687, he argues first, that CALJIC 2.21 was prejudicial to his defense because it appeared to be directed principally toward his exculpatory testimony since it conflicted with the testimony of the two eyewitnesses. He asserts that "generally," the instruction

Page 630