## Facts

- Giuseppe Fraguglia and Angelo Sala were stockholders and employees of the Sunset Scavenger Company and worked together on the same garbage truck in San Francisco.
- On January 11, 1935, around 6:15 a.m., an altercation occurred on Cornwall Street between Second and Third Avenues while the crew was working in the dark under an electric streetlight.
- Fraguglia’s task was to remain in the truck box, spread garbage, and separate salvageable material; Sala and three others collected garbage and loaded it into the truck. Renati was “boss of the truck,” and Sala was second in command.
- After Sala deposited a load into the truck box, the men exchanged words; their accounts of the statements and who escalated first conflicted.
- Fraguglia grabbed a heavy, short-handled pitchfork used in the truck box; Fraguglia claimed Sala reached for it first, while Sala denied he could have reached it.
- Sala testified that Fraguglia threatened to kill him and advanced with the pitchfork, attempting to strike or stab him, prompting Sala to evade and jump to the sidewalk.
- A struggle followed, during which Sala knocked Fraguglia down, causing significant injuries.
- Fraguglia sued for assault and battery, obtained a jury verdict and judgment for damages, and Sala appealed based on claimed error in the self-defense instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s self-defense instructions improperly prevented the jury from evaluating Sala’s conduct based on the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to him at the time.
2. Whether the instructions misstated self-defense law by implying Sala provoked the encounter or acted wrongfully by exercising supervisory authority, thereby negating self-defense without evidentiary support.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Fraguglia and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the self-defense instructions were erroneous and prejudicial because they misframed the governing standard and introduced unsupported theories of provocation.
- The court concluded the instructional errors were not harmless because they impaired Sala’s principal defense.

## Legal Principles

- Self-defense is assessed from the defendant’s standpoint: the question is whether the defendant acted as a reasonable person in light of the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time, not based on hindsight or which party made the “next advance.”
- A defendant may use reasonable force to protect against an apparent imminent attack if the belief in the need for defense is honest and reasonable, even if later shown unnecessary.
- Jury instructions on self-defense must not suggest loss of the defense through provocation or misconduct unless supported by evidence, and must not use hypothetical scenarios that mislead the jury on material issues.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed to evaluate self-defense from Sala’s reasonable, contemporaneous perception of danger, and the charge improperly implied provocation and loss of the defense without evidentiary basis.


Fraguglia v. Sala, 17 Cal. App. 2d 738, 62 P.2d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)