Is CALCRIM 3471 unnecessary to make clear that even if he started the fight, can he still claim self-defense or unreasonable self-defence?

Defendant argues that CALCRIM No. 3471 was necessary to make clear that even if he started the fight, he could still claim self-defense or unreasonable self-defense, depending on the circumstances. On the contrary; where, as here, the trial court has given an unqualified self-defense instruction and the question presented to the jury was whether defendant exercised that right in a reasonable manner when he stabbed the victim, CALCRIM No. 3471 is unnecessary. (See People v. Johnson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 702, 711.)

Moreover, a trial court must instruct sua sponte on defenses only "'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.' [Citation.]" (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 157.) Requiring "'"'sua sponte instructions [concerning defenses] which are inconsistent with defense trial theory or not clearly demanded by the evidence would hamper defense attorneys and put trial judges under pressure to glean legal theories and winnow the evidence for remotely tenable and sophistical instructions.'"' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 158, second italics added.)