What is the burden of persuasion for a defendant in a non-homicide assault case?

The Adrian opinion involved the propriety of refusing to give a pinpoint instruction on the People's burden of persuasion with respect to self-defense in a non-homicide assault case. (People v. Adrian, supra, 135 Cal.App.3d 335.) It did not address the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, and is not authority for the proposition we understand defendant to be making; namely, that to successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, he need only show a rational jury could have found from the

Page 14

prosecution's evidence that he acted in self-defense. We reject that proposition, for the following reasons.

As this case demonstrates, the ultimate question whether a defendant did or did not act in self-defense can turn on myriad factual issues, which are normally resolved by the jury. For example, these may include whether the circumstances would cause a reasonable person to perceive the necessity of self-defense, whether the defendant actually acted in defense of himself, and whether the force he used was excessive. (See People v. Clark (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 371, 379, overruled on another ground in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 92.) In a given case, it may even include whether the defense was contrived. As noted above, the substantial evidence rule prohibits us from reassessing the credibility of the witnesses or resolving factual disputes.