What is the test for a judge to give a jury a full and complete explanation of the self-defense doctrine?

Penal Code² section 1138 requires a judge to answer questions posed by the jury during their deliberations in open court. "Where the original instructions are themselves full and complete, the court has discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury's request for information. [Citation.] Indeed, comments diverging from the standard are often risky. [Citation.] The trial court [may be] understandably reluctant to strike out on its own. But a court must do more than figuratively throw up its hands and tell the jury it cannot help. It must at least consider how it can best aid the jury. It should decide as to each jury question whether further explanation is desirable, or whether it should merely reiterate the instructions already given." (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 97.) The trial court's decision to instruct or not to instruct is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 745-746.) A claim that the substantive information conveyed was inaccurate is a question of law, which we review de novo. (People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569.)

Generally, "the self-defense doctrine 'may not be invoked by a defendant who, through his own wrongful conduct (e.g., the initiation of a physical attack or the commission of a felony), has created circumstances under which his adversary's attack or pursuit is legally justified.' " (People v. Eulian (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1333.) Defendant's claim is based on the principle that a person who initiates a conflict may resort to lethal force when the victim responds with lethal force and there is no avenue for retreat. " 'Where the original aggressor is not guilty of a deadly attack, but of a simple assault or trespass, the victim has no right to use deadly or other excessive force. . . . If

Page 10