People v. Alexander CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant Forfeited Any Claim the Instructions Were Misleading CALCRIM No. 3474 generally instructs that the right to use force in self-defense “continues only as long as the danger

2 Further undesignated rule references are to the California

Rules of Court.

3 exists or reasonably appears to exist.” It adds that the right to use force ends “[w]hen the attacker withdraws” or “no longer appears capable of inflicting any injury.”3 CALCRIM No. 571 instructs the jury regarding imperfect self-defense.4 Appellant contends the trial court erred by including the language of CALCRIM No. 3474 in CALCRIM No. 571. He asserts the instruction improperly precluded the jury from considering imperfect self-defense if Cardona had withdrawn. We disagree. Although including the language of CALCRIM No. 3474 in the instruction on imperfect self-defense could have been misleading, appellant forfeited any such claim because he did not make that argument below.

3 CALCRIM No. 3474 states: “The right to use force in self- defense continues only as long as the danger exists or reasonably appears to exist. [When the attacker withdraws, then the right to use force ends.]”

4 CALCRIM No. 571…