Court Opinion

ID: 9623834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:44:22.034975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:01.118381
License: Public Domain

Hunt, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment but point out that the Court of Appeals did no harm to the legal principle involved. It agreed that a defendant’s sole defense must be charged by the court, or, at the least, covered by the court in its charge. Six members of the Court of Appeals *607affirmed the trial court’s ruling that no evidence was presented as to that defense. Three members disagreed. Ordinarily, we would not grant the writ of certiorari to decide whether the facts bring a certain legal principle into play — a legal principle about which there is no disagreement. Nevertheless, the writ having been granted, I agree with the opinion’s assessment of the evidence.
Decided October 18, 1991.
Spruell & Dubuc, Billy L. Spruell, Brian M. Dubuc, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lawler III, District Attorney, Allyson Fritz, Debra K. Turner, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Justice Weltner joins in this concurrence.