What is the test for a jury to determine whether a defendant acted deliberately, deliberation and premeditated in an imperfect self-defense case?

and premeditation." The court explained that defendant "acted willfully if he intended to kill when he acted," that he "acted deliberately if he carefully weighed the considerations for and against his choice and knowing the consequences decided to kill," and that he acted with "premeditation if he decided to kill before acting." The court explained that a "decision to kill made rashly, impulsively or without careful consideration of the choice and its consequences is not deliberate and premeditated." A decision to kill made impulsively would include the imperfect self-defense scenario described in the kite. The court also instructed the jury that "The People have the burden of proving this allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. If the People have not met this burden, you must find this allegation has not been proved." The jury specifically found that the attempted murder was committed willfully, and with deliberation and premeditation, which is inconsistent with the claim that defendant acted impulsively in imperfect self-defense. " 'Error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the omitted instructions adversely to [the] defendant under other properly given instructions.' " (People v. Peau (2105) 236 Cal.App.4th 823, 830 [finding no prejudice under Chapman], quoting People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646.) Since the jury found the attempted murder of Lopez was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and in view of the strength of the evidence supporting that finding, we conclude the failure to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.