Is a hallucination admissible to reduce first degree murder to second degree?

A person's hallucination is a perception that is not based on any objective reality. (People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 677.) "[E]vidence of a hallucination . . . is inadmissible to negate malice so as to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter but is admissible to negate deliberation and premeditation so as to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder." (Ibid.) The court has a sua sponte duty to

Page 26

give defense instructions supported by substantial evidence and not inconsistent with defendant's theory of the case. (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195.) However, "'[a] party may not argue on appeal that an instruction correct in law was too general or incomplete, and thus needed clarification, without first requesting such clarification at trial.'" (People v. Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1145, 1165.)