Brady

*1010 Following a street side jewelry transaction gone awry, defendant Charles Wesley Brady stabbed his former customer. Based on that incident, a jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon (a knife). ( Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23).) 1 It also found that, in doing so, he inflicted great bodily injury. ( §§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (a).)

By convicting Brady, the jury necessarily rejected his primary defensive theory-that he was acting in self-defense. On appeal, he asserts that no reasonable jury could reach that conclusion. While his argument ultimately challenges the sufficiency *222 of the evidence underlying his conviction, before arriving there he raises an interesting question as to the relevant legal standard.

To justify an act based on self-defense, a defendant must have subjectively held an objectively reasonable belief that bodily injury was imminent. The objective component considers what would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the defendant's situation and with his or her knowledge. Because the objective standard looks from "the defendant's perspective," Brady contends it should take into account his mental…