At appellant’s trial for murder, the jury was instructed with the standard self-defense instruction, CALJIC 5.54. That instruction requires that one who has initiated the assault must inform his opponent that he wishes to and has stopped fighting, in order to reinstate his right to self-defense. In this appeal, appellant contended that CALJIC 5.54 is incorrect and misleading because it told the jurors that appellant was required to verbally inform the victim that he wants to and has stopped fighting. The appellate court here rejected the argument, finding that nothing in the instruction would support that interpretation, and concluding that there was no reasonable likelihood of confusion. The court expressly rejected the contrary opinion in People v. Hernandez, finding the reasoning of that case unpersuasive.