What is relevant and admissible in a case where a defendant claims to have acted in self-defense because of threats made against him by his own family and friends?

We conclude that both kinds of threats are equally relevant and admissible. A person claiming self-defense is required to "prove his own frame of mind," and in so doing is "entitled to corroborate his testimony that he was in fear for his life by proving the reasonableness of such fear." (People v. Davis, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 656, 47 Cal.Rptr. 801, 408 P.2d 129.) The defendant's perceptions are at issue, and threats from a family and its friends may color a person's [42 Cal.App.4th 569] perceptions of that group no less than threats from an individual may color a person's perceptions of that individual. A defendant who testifies that he acted from fear of a clan united against him is entitled to corroborate that testimony with evidence "tend[ing] in reason to prove" that the fear was reasonable. (Evid.Code, 210 [defining relevant evidence].) Threats from the group on the defendant's life would certainly tend in reason to make the defendant fearful. This is

Page 453