In People v. De Leon (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 815, the defendant appealed on the ground that the trial court failed to sua sponte instruct on unreasonable self-defense. (Id. at p. 817.) The defendant argued that, since the trial court found substantial evidence of self-defense to justify an instruction on that theory, there was necessarily substantial evidence of unreasonable self-defense. In De Leon, bystanders saw the defendant chase a man and fire at him with a gun. The bystanders apprehended the defendant and unsuccessfully attempted to disarm him while he threatened and cursed at them. When the bystanders released the defendant, he insulted them, took out his gun, and began firing. He killed one bystander and wounded another. The reviewing court found that, even though the trial court gave an instruction on reasonable self-defense, there was not substantial evidence that the defendant believed he was in imminent peril. Therefore, there was not substantial evidence for either reasonable or unreasonable self-defense instructions, and the defendant's claim of error failed. (Id. at pp. 824-825.)