What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of assault with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest?

Defendant relies extensively on People v. White (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 161 (White). There, the defendant assaulted multiple arresting officers, struggled during her arrest, and bit an officer who had placed her in a "carotid restraint ('sleeper' hold)" to subdue her. (Id. at p. 165.) The defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on a peace officer, and resisting arrest. (Id. at p. 164.) She contended that, although the court properly instructed the jury concerning the definition of a lawful arrest and concerning the right of a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect an arrest, its instructions were incomplete because they did not address the issue of excessive force or her theory of self-defense. (Id. at p. 166.) The court concluded that because there was an issue of excessive force presented, which, if found to have occurred, would have made the arrest unlawful, "it became essential for the jury to be told that if they found the arrest was made with excessive force, the arrest was unlawful and they should find the defendant not guilty" of the offenses of which she was ultimately convicted. (Id. at p. 167.) The court also held that the instructions were incomplete because they did not address defendant's selfdefense theory. Since she had claimed that she had the right to defend herself against force by the arresting officers' use of excessive force, "it was necessary to explain further that where an officer uses unreasonable or excessive force in making an arrest, the person arrested has the right to use reasonable force to protect himself.... A definition of reasonable force is also essential. [Citation.]" (White at p. 168.)

Page 14