In People v. Strozier (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 55, the court found there was insufficient evidence to support instructions on the defense of another. The defendant there had waited about five minutes before intervening in a fight between his friends and the victim. And the evidence showed the only reason he got involved at all was because the victim accidentally hit him in the face with a stick. On this record, the court found defendant "failed to present substantial evidence showing that he acted in defense of his friends when he entered the fight, rather than acting in self-defense. Thus, the refusal to give CALJIC No. 5.32 was not error." (People v. Strozier, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) "A defendant in a criminal matter has a constitutional right to have the jury decide every material factual matter presented by the evidence. In reviewing the evidence to determine whether exclusion of a requested instruction was error, '"doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions should be resolved in favor of the accused."' The test, however, as to when an instruction must be given is whether there was substantial evidence presented which would warrant the giving of the instruction. A jury instruction need not be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak. Rather, the accused must present 'evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable men could have concluded that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist. This does not require -- or permit -- the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses. It simply frees the court from any obligation to present theories to the jury which the jury could not reasonably find to exist.' " (People v. Strozier, at p.62-63.)