What is the test for the defense of habitation?

"Defense of habitation applies where the defendant uses reasonable force to exclude someone he or she reasonably believes is trespassing in, or about to trespass in, his or her home. However, the intentional use of deadly force merely to protect property is never reasonable. Accordingly, a homicide involving the intentional use of deadly force can never be justified by defense of habitation alone. The defendant must also show either self-defense or defense of others, i.e., that he or she reasonably believed the intruder intended to kill or inflict serious injury on someone in the home." (People v. Curtis (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1360 (Curtis). "Like traditional self-defense, . . . defense of habitation applies only if the defendant's belief that a trespass is occurring or about to occur is reasonable." (Id. at p. 1361.)

"'[T]he right of defending one's dwelling is in some sense superior to that of the defense of his person; for in the latter case it is frequently the duty of the assaulted to flee, if the fierceness of the assault will permit, while in the former a man assaulted in his dwelling is not obligated to retreat, but may stand his ground, defend his possession, and use such means as are absolutely necessary to repel the assailant from his house, even to the taking of life.'" (People v. Hubbard (1923) 64 Cal.App. 27, 36.)