Is there any case law where a jury convicted a defendant of reckless endangerment of life because he believed in the need for self-defense?

believed in the need for self-defense. That understanding is inconsistent with the trial court's reliance on a "high degree of callousness" as an aggravating sentencing factor. Instead of a callous action, one undertaken without regard for the feelings or welfare of others, defendant fired the two shots because, in the jury's view, he actually believed he must use deadly force lest he himself suffer death or great bodily injury. (See People v. Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 841 [in assessing harmlessness, court could not conclude jury would have found defendant was callous, i.e., that she had "no concern regarding the consequences of her actions" when jury convicted only on lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter].) Accordingly, callousness was not established as an aggravating circumstance.

e. Serious danger to society