What is the burden of the prosecution on the defence of self-defence?

"Although the belief in the need to defend must be objectively reasonable, a jury must consider what 'would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge . . . .' [Citation.] It judges reasonableness 'from the point of view of a reasonable person in the position of defendant . . . .' [Citation.] To do this, it must consider all the '"'facts and circumstances . . . in determining whether the defendant acted in a manner in which a reasonable man would act in protecting his own life or bodily safety.'"' [Citation.] As we stated long ago, '. . . a defendant is entitled to have a jury take into consideration all the elements in the case which might be expected to operate on his mind . . . .' [Citation.]" (People v. Humphrey, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1082, italics omitted.)

Page 9

Unless the prosecution's evidence shows that the killing might have been excused or justified, the defendant bears the burden of raising the affirmative defense of excuse or justification, such as self-defense. ( 189.5, subd. (a); People v. Frye (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1154.) If the defendant raises a reasonable doubt as to the existence of an excuse or justification for the killing, the prosecution bears the burden of persuading the jury as to the defendant's actual mental state. (People v. Frye, at p. 1155.)