California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Perkins, A144225 (Cal. App. 2016):
Defendant does not quarrel with the legal correctness of this instruction; nor could he. (See People v. Hinshaw (1924) 194 Cal. 1, 26 ["self-defense is not available as a plea to a defendant who has sought a quarrel with the design to force a deadly issue and thus, through his fraud, contrivance or fault, to create a real or apparent necessity for making a felonious assault"].) Defendant nonetheless disputes that there was evidence that he "provoked [the victim] into an attack that [he] then warded off through contrived self-defense." He then argues that, "in the absence of any evidence on which to accurately focus the instruction, the jury would interpret it to mean that Perkins, engaged in a drug deal, had intentionally placed himself in a potentially volatile and violent situation, and could not, in accord with the instruction, therefore invoke a right to self-defense. This is not the law."