Opinion ID: 2332411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for Instruction on Defendant's Theory of the Case

Text: Appellant argues, next, that the trial court abridged appellant's right to have the jury instructed on his theory of the case. See Bailey v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 281 A.2d 440 (1971). This rule has broader application than protection of a defendant's right to a lesser-included offense instruction. Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282, 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958). In this case, however, it amounts to the same contention. The case law suggests that the threshold quantity of evidence required before a court must instruct the jury on the defendant's theory of the case is no less than that required for a lesser-included offense instruction. See Bailey v. District of Columbia, supra ; Salley v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 359, 353 F.2d 897 (1965); Levine v. United States, supra . Appellant's argument therefore fails.