What is the test for self-defense in a fatal assault case?

Homicide is justifiable when committed in lawful self-defense, but if the defendant "was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, [he] must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed." ( 197, subd. (3).) As courts have further explained, imperfect self-defense is available to a defendant " 'when the victim's use of force against the defendant is unlawful, even when the defendant set in motion the chain of events that led the victim to attack the defendant.' " (People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 947.) However, a defendant has no right to claim self-defense if he contrives a deadly assault, because the victim is entitled to use deadly force in response. (Ibid.)

We find no reasonable likelihood that jurors understood the instructions regarding mutual combat/initial aggressor in the way defendant asserts. The jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 3471 that, if the jury found that "Defendant used only nondeadly force and the opponent responded with such sudden and deadly force that Defendant [] could not have withdrawn from the fight, then the Defendant had the right to defend himself with deadly force and was not required to try to stop fighting or to communicate the desire to stop to the opponent." (See People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 130 [we presume the jurors understood, correlated, and correctly applied the instructions].)