What is the case law on perfect self-defense instructions in the context of the Contreras homicide?

In our view, there is no substantial evidence to support the giving of perfect self-defense instructions regarding the Contreras homicide. Simply stated, there is no evidence defendant killed Contreras because defendant believed he was in imminent danger of being killed by him. (See CALJIC No. 5.12.) Further, just because the court permitted instructions on perfect self-defense does not mean that substantial evidence supported the giving of an imperfect self-defense instruction. To the contrary, it would not have been error for the trial court to have denied perfect self-defense instructions with regard to Contreras because no substantial evidence supported such a defense. (People v. De Leon (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 815, 824, 825, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 [conc. opinion of Johnson, J., expressed belief the trial court erred by instructing on self-defense because no substantial evidence supported that claim].)

Page 357

This was a classic lying-in-wait, execution-style, premeditated and deliberate murder committed out of revenge. There was no evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude defendant held an actual or honest belief in the need to defend against imminent danger to himself or others. (People v. DeLeon, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 824-825, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 825.)

[53 Cal.App.4th 1271] D. The Moore homicide