Is it an error to instruct a jury on self-defense?

It is also true that a finding of self-defense, which imports a volitional shooting, is inconsistent with defendant's own testimony. On the other hand, the People went to some trouble to prove by expert testimony that the gun in question would not accidentally discharge as claimed by defendant. Under the circumstances the jury could have found that for various reasons defendant's recollection was not correct. Again it must be conceded that, while on the evidence produced the jury could have found a volitional shooting, the verdict finding defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter negatives this possibility. Even so the error in failing to instruct on self-defense is not academic. Before the Carmen-Miller-Modesto line of cases the point might have had some merit, but a similar contention was advanced in Modesto, where the People argued that the failure to give a manslaughter instruction was harmless error in view of the jury's finding that defendant was guilty of first degree murder. The contention was answered as follows: 'It is * * * settled that defendant's right to a manslaughter instruction when there is evidence thereof precludes not only our weighing that evidence to determine the likelihood that a properly instructed jury would have found manslaughter, but also our attempting to determine how the failure to present the issue of manslaughter to the jury may or may not have influenced its choice between first and second degree murder. Since we do not know what effect an instruction that the jury could return a verdict of manslaughter would have had on its deliberations, we cannot conclude that it necessarily rejected the evidence of manslaughter. Defendant was entitled to a jury trial on all of the issues presented by the evidence, and that right he was denied.' (People v. Modesto, supra, 59 Cal.2d p. 731, 31 Cal.Rptr. p. 230, 382 P.2d p. 38.

Pointing to People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59, 153 P.2d 21, the People argue that in the light of the totality of the evidence in this case it was not error to fail to instruct on self-defense. We are invited to compare the facts in Holt with those in the case at bar.