What is the test for a jury to read a self-defense instruction?

Although the jury was provided a written copy of this instruction, we assume the jurors did not actually read it for purposes of this analysis. (People v. Murillo (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1107 [where requested instruction is given only in writing, it is not possible to determine if jurors actually read it and court assumes it was not given at all].)

"Even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence; that is, those principles that are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case." (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 277.) This "sua sponte duty to instruct on all material issues presented by the evidence extends to defenses as well as to lesser included offenses [citation], but [there is] a sharp distinction between the two situations. In the case of defenses, . . . a sua sponte instructional duty arises 'only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case.' " (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 157.) Substantial evidence of a defense is evidence, which, if believed, would be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982.) The self-defense instruction defendant argues should have been read to the jury requires evidence that (1) defendant reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury, (2) defendant reasonably believed immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger, and (3) defendant used no more force than reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Here, defendant neither requested the self-defense instruction nor did counsel argue self-defense to the jury.

Page 6