What is the test for a jury to reject self-defense instructions in CALCRIM No. 505?

Like former CALJIC No. 5.12 at issue in Trevino, CALCRIM No. 505 as given here, did not remove the possibility that the appellant may have had other feelings about Daniel, and it did not inform the jury that it had to reject self-defense if the appellant harbored feelings other than fear. Instead, in accord with Penal Code section 198, CALCRIM No. 505 requires that appellant's fear for his life is the sole "but for" cause of the murder. Thus, CALCRIM No. 505 was an accurate and complete statement of the law. And if appellant wanted clarifying instructions on the role or presence of his feelings other than fear, he was required to request those instructions. He failed to do so, and thus cannot complain on appeal that the jury was not properly instructed. (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503 ["A party may not argue on appeal that an instruction correct in law was too general or incomplete, and thus needed

Page 9

clarification, without first requesting such clarification at trial."].) Appellant's attack on CALCRIM No. 505 fails.