Court Opinion

ID: 9507406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:22:36.147799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:19.440430
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE MORRISON,
specially concurring:
*105I concur in the result but not with the entire rationale of the majority opinion.
With respect to Issue No. 2, concerning whether it was error to deny defendant’s offered instruction on self-defense, I would reach the same result, but for a different reason. The defendant here did not rely upon self-defense. Defendant’s version of the incident was that the gun accidently discharged. Under these circumstances, it was not error for the District Court to refuse the self-defense instruction.
I take issue with the majority’s position that the defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because defendant was shown to be the aggressor. Under defendant’s version of the facts, he was not the aggressor and would be entitled to an instruction on his theory. However, because he did not rely upon self-defense it was not error for the trial court to refuse to give such an instruction.
I would affirm.
MR. JUSTICES SHEEHY and SHEA join in the specially concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE MORRISON.