Opinion ID: 162747
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's Failure To Request A Self-Defense Instruction

Text: 109 Mr. Le objects to his counsel's failure to request any self-defense instructions at the first stage of the trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals stated that such an instruction could not have been given, [e]ven giving [Mr.] Le the benefit of every possible doubt [based on] this evidence ... Le I, 947 P.2d at 547. In Oklahoma, self-defense is not available to an aggressor. See Ruth v. Oklahoma, 581 P.2d 919, 922 (Okla.Crim.App.1978). Even assuming that Mrs. Nguyen had retained the barbell so as to threaten Mr. Le or that Mr. Nguyen had picked up the bar Mr. Le allegedly dropped and then used it to fight back, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that Mr. Le never ceased being the aggressor. See Le I, 947 P.2d at 547. We agree. For this reason, it cannot have been error for his counsel not to request a self-defense instruction. There being no error, the Court of Criminal Appeals did not unreasonably apply federal law on this point. 110