In People v. Uriarte (1990) 223 Cal. App. 3d 192, the defendant, who sometimes suffered from hallucinations due to his drug and alcohol abuse, killed his neighbors in the delusional belief they were holding his wife hostage. (Id. at pp. 194-196.) On appeal, he contended the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not murder, if, as a result of his delusional mental state, he honestly but unreasonably believed the killings were necessary to prevent imminent great bodily injury to his wife. (Id. at pp. 196-197.) As the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to support the doctrine of imperfect self-defense (id. at pp. 197-198), its statement that the defendant's theory for requesting such an instruction was correct (id. at p. 197), is dictum. The Court of appeal extended the imperfect self-defense to include defense of others when it stated, "the focus of People v. Flannel (1979) is that a person who honestly believes there is an imminent threat to his own life or the lives of others cannot harbor malice." ( Id. at p. 197.) In Uriarte, the court concluded that there was an "insufficient basis for giving . . . CALJIC No. 5.17 instruction." ( People v. Uriarte, supra, 223 Cal. App. 3d at p. 198.) The court opined that "while defendant's statement, 'They abused her' certainly suggests a perception of physical harm, it is unclear whether he believed additional harm was imminent and would constitute great bodily injury. In any event, assuming Elma was being held in a closet in Alva's apartment and had been abused, there was no evidence that Uriarte believed it was necessary to shoot the victims in order to save Elma." (Ibid.)