In People v. Myers (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 328, which held that the trial court erred in failing to give the modified version of CALJIC No. 5.30 requested by the defendant. The court recognized that the least touching may constitute battery, so that the force against the person need not be such as to cause bodily harm. "It follows that an offensive touching, although it inflicts no bodily harm, may nonetheless constitute a battery, which the victim is privileged to resist with such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. The same may be said of an assault insofar as it is an attempt to commit such a battery. To hold otherwise would lead to the ludicrous result of a person not being able to lawfully resist or defend against a continuing assault or battery, such as the act defendant alleged here." ( Id. at p. 335, ) There, the defendant requested a modification of CALJIC No. 5.30 to reflect that the right of self-defense applies to a threatened battery, and does not require fear of bodily injury. The court in Myers did not discuss whether the instruction was a pinpoint one relating the particular facts to the elements of the offense and possible defenses. In People v. Myers (1998) the Court reversed a defendant's convictions for aggravated battery and simple assault, due to the failure of the court to accept defendant's request for a modified self-defense instruction. Defendant had been charged with assault likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) and battery resulting in serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (d)). Defendant's version was in conflict with the prosecution's version of how events unfolded. Defendant contended that the victim, with whom defendant had had numerous verbal disputes with in the past, came up to defendant while he was washing his car. The victim started poking defendant in the chest, defendant pushed the victim away. Because the concrete was wet and the victim was wearing leather sole shoes, the victim slipped striking his head on the concrete causing serious neurological injury. The prosecution's version was that the defendant punched the victim in the face, knocking him out, which resulted in the victim falling to the concrete and suffering serious injury. On appeal defendant contended the "instruction on self-defense against an assault (CALJIC No. 5.30) should have been modified to say that a person may, in appropriate circumstances, use reasonable force to resist a battery even when he has no reason to believe he is about to suffer bodily injury." ( People v. Myers, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 330.) The Court agreed and reversed his convictions, finding the failure to give the modified instruction, as requested, resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Part of our reasoning was based upon the jury's determination finding defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault (Pen. Code, 240), as well as the conflicting versions of what occurred. The defendant, if his version were correct, had the right to use reasonable force to prevent the unwanted touching (poking). A push, without more, could be considered reasonable, and thus warrant an acquittal of the charges. The prosecution argued against the modified instruction, contending defendant could only use reasonable force if defendant had a reasonable belief he was going to suffer bodily injury from the victim. We found that under the particular facts of this case, the defendant was entitled to use reasonable force to stop the unwanted and offensive touching, i.e., the poking (which constituted a battery, whether in tort or in criminal law). "It follows that an offensive touching, although it inflicts no bodily harm, may nonetheless constitute a battery, which the victim is privileged to resist with such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. The same may be said of an assault insofar as it is an attempt to commit such a battery. To hold otherwise would lead to the ludicrous result of a person not being able to lawfully resist or defend against a continuing assault or battery, such as the act defendant alleged here." ( People v. Myers, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 335, )