What is the test for a defendant's claim of imperfect self-defense?

A trial court is required to instruct a jury on any lesser included offenses of the charged crimes that are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162.) Substantial evidence is that from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant committed the lesser offense, but not the greater offense. (Ibid.) "'Doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions should be resolved in favor of the accused. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 519.)

Imperfect self-defense is a form of voluntary manslaughter, which is a lesser included offense of murder. (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 200-201.) A defendant's claim of "imperfect self-defense is not an affirmative defense, but a description of one type of voluntary manslaughter. Thus the trial court must instruct on

Page 16

this doctrine, whether or not instructions are requested by counsel, whenever there is evidence substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury that under this doctrine the defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. [Citation.]" (People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 529.)

"Self-defense is perfect or imperfect. For perfect self-defense, one must actually and reasonably believe in the necessity of defending oneself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. [Citation.] . . . . [] 'One acting in imperfect self-defense also actually believes he must defend himself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury; however, his belief is unreasonable. [Citations.]'" (People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 994.)