What is the test for jury instructions on self-defense in a personal injury case?

The jury was instructed, in the language of CALJIC No. 5.51 (1977 revision), that the right of self-defense is the same whether the perceived danger is real or only apparent, so long as the defendant entertains an honest and reasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense. The jury was also instructed, in the language of CALJIC No. 5.17, that an honest but unreasonable belief in the existence of imminent peril is not a complete defense but reduces a [46 Cal.3d 874] criminal homicide from murder to manslaughter. (See iPeople v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 674-680, 160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1.)

"It is well established in California that the correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction. [Citations.] '[T]he fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.' [Citation.] 'The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.' [Citation.]" (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538-539, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251.)