What is the test for the perfect self-defense and imperfect self-defence doctrine?

"[A] trial court in a criminal case is requiredwith or without a requestto give correct jury instructions on the general principles of law relevant to issues raised by the evidence." (People v. Mutuma (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 635, 640.) The trial court has a duty to instruct sua sponte regarding a defense " ' "if it appears that the [appellant] is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the [appellant's] theory of the case." ' " (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 424.) Substantial evidence is that which, if believed, would be sufficient for a jury to find a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt. (People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 529.)

Pursuant to the imperfect self-defense doctrine, an unlawful killing done with an intent to kill constitutes voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, "when the defendant acts upon an actual but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense." (People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 551.) Under the perfect self-defense doctrine, a homicide is entirely "noncriminal where the actor possessed both an actual and reasonable belief in the need to defend." (Ibid.) In either situation, the defendant must actually fear imminent danger to life or great bodily injury. (Ibid.) The trier of fact "must consider what 'would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person' " in the position of the defendant, with the defendant's knowledge and awareness. (People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082-1083.)