What is the test for a jury to find a defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on use of excessive force in self-defense?

We find defendant's arguments untenable. In the first place, voluntary manslaughter based on use of excessive force in self-defense is not a separate theory from voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. (See People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 777.) Where a person uses excessive force in self-defense, malice is negated only if defendant honestly but unreasonably believed the degree of force used was in fact necessary. (Ibid.) By virtue of CALCRIM No. 571, the jury was adequately instructed on what to do if they found defendant used excessive force in self-defense. There was no need for further instructions on imperfect self-defense.

Besides, under People v. Blakely, supra, 23 Cal.4th at page 91, when a person acts with conscious disregard for life and unintentionally kills in unreasonable self-defense, the killing is voluntary, not involuntary manslaughter as defendant contends. Pursuant to CALCRIM No. 580, the court instructed the jury that in order to find defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter it had to conclude he killed Rios without the intent to kill and without conscious disregard for the risk to human life he created. This instruction is a correct statement of the law and nothing more was required.