What is the test for a defense of property instruction in a shooting case?

theory would not have been legally sound. The factual record demonstrates that no reasonable juror could find that petitioner used reasonable force to protect his property from imminent harm because he used lethal force, i.e., he fired three independently fatal shots into the victim's torso, which was per se unreasonable for purposes of a defense of property theory under California law. See People v. Curtis, 30 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1360 (1994) ("[T]he intentional use of deadly force merely to protect property is never reasonable."). For this same reason, it cannot be said that a failure to give a defense of property instruction "so infected the entire trial that [petitioner's] resulting conviction violate[d] due process" because no reasonable juror could have found petitioner not guilty under this theory. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. at 72. Accordingly, petitioner's claim that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by not sua sponte giving the jury a defense of property instruction should be denied.

D. Admission of Expert Testimony Regarding the Absence of Gunshot Residue