What is the test for establishing that a fight started as a matter of mutual combat?

As an alternative, the jury could conclude the fight started as a matter of mutual combat. Mutual combat consists of fighting by mutual intention or consent as reflected in an express or implied agreement to fight. (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1046-1047.) The jury could conclude that when Worden got out of his car, he took a fighting stance. Weems testified he kept walking toward Worden and he was willing to fight "if need be." They jury could conclude that there was an implied agreement to fight.

Page 8

In any event, even if the instruction was not supported by substantial evidence, any error was harmless. The jury was also instructed with CALCRIM No. 200 that "[s]ome of these instructions may not apply, depending on your findings about the facts of the case . . . ." If the jury found that there was no evidence of mutual combat or that Worden did not start the fight, it would not apply CALCRIM No. 3471. We presume the jury is able to correlate, follow and understand instructions. (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852.)

The judgment is affirmed.