How to apply the doctrine of defense of another in an assault case?

The court's instructions, when read as a whole, correctly stated the law in California. A killing or attempted killing is not a crime when based on a reasonable belief that killing is necessary to avert an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. (People v. Elmore, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 133-134.) In contrast, when that belief is unreasonable, a killing is not justifiable. (Id. at p. 134.) A person is liable for voluntary manslaughter if the person, with the intent to kill or with conscious disregard for life, unlawfully kills in unreasonable self-defense. (Ibid.; accord People v. Blakeley, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 91.) As such, we reject appellant's claim that a conflict existed between these instructions regarding how to apply the doctrine of defense of another. We also reject his contention that the jury should have been instructed that, if they found imperfect defense of another, appellant was not guilty of attempted manslaughter. Appellant's position in that regard is incorrect as a matter of law.

Page 35

Finally, we find unpersuasive appellant's argument that instructional error occurred because the trial court's modified instruction under CALCRIM No. 505 did not state that defense of another applies to attempted manslaughter. Pursuant to the instructions given under CALCRIM No. 604, the jurors were told that appellant was not guilty of any crime if he acted in complete defense of another. The trial court's instructions do not appear confusing or contradictory. Moreover, we presume the jurors are "intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court's instructions. [Citation.]" (People v. Gonzales, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 940.)