P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court violated his “state and federal constitutional rights to due process by failing to instruct [sua sponte] on the defense of necessity.” We disagree. The trial court must instruct sua sponte on a specific defense “ ‘ “if it appears that the defendant 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 defendant’s theory of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Gonzalez (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 382, 389.) We review appeals based on absent instructions de novo. (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111.) “To justify an instruction on the defense of necessity, there must be evidence sufficient to establish that defendant violated the law (1) to prevent a significant evil, (2) with no adequate alternative, (3) without creating a greater danger than the one avoided, (4) with a good faith belief in the necessity, (5) with such belief being objectively reasonable, and (6) under circumstances in which he did not substantially contribute to the emergency.” (People v. Pepper (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1035.)

2 Defendant argues that his testimony at trial…