disagree. While the trial court’s instruction on self-defense was extensive and quite detailed, it was based on Brown being the only assailant. It did not cover the situation that allegedly occurred here, namely, that appellant believed Brown and Marvis were going to attack him, Marvis reached for his gun, and appellant shot Brown. This is precisely the situation covered in a multiple assailants instruction. Thus, we find the error constitutes some harm to appellant. See Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). The State also argues appellant was not entitled to this instruction because appellant did not testify at trial. We do not believe this is a prerequisite to obtaining an instruction on multiple assailants. See Smith v. State, 676 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that
holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that where use of reasonable nondeadly force causes death defendant entitled to instruction on selfdefense holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense holding that when both parties agree that the facts of the case entitled defendant to a selfdefense instruction failing to so instruct the jury was error