How have the instructions on imperfect self-defense been interpreted by the courts?

Defendant's last claim is that the imperfect self-defense instructions were defective because they failed to tell the jury that "someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person." Defendant acknowledges that the foregoing language is not included in the standard instruction, and he does not cite any case supporting his claim that such language should be included in instructions on imperfect self-defense. (Cf. People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1083 [considering "the relevance of evidence of battered women's syndrome" as to self-defense]; Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1067 ["evidence of threats from the victim's associates may be used in support of a claim of self-defense"], italics added.)