California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Williams, B259888 (Cal. App. 2016):
"The subjective elements of self-defense and imperfect self-defense are identical. Under each theory, the appellant must actually believe in the need to defend himself against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury. To require instruction on either theory, there must be evidence from which the jury could find that appellant actually had such a belief. This evidence may be present even though appellant did not testify or make a statement admitted at trial. [Citation.] If the trier of fact finds the requisite belief in the need to defend against imminent peril, the choice between self-defense and imperfect self-defense properly turns upon the trier of fact's evaluation of the reasonableness of appellant's belief. Accordingly, if the evidence is sufficient to support instruction on self-defense, it is also sufficient to support instruction on imperfect self-defense." (People v. Viramontes (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1262.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.