Court Opinion

ID: 9935878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:56:54.671143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:43.610404
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion reversing Chestang's conviction on the basis that the trial court refused to give an instruction on self-defense requested by Chestang and the instruction the trial court gave on self-defense "does not *Page 875 
cover the specific situation covered in the requested instruction." 837 So.2d at 874. In my opinion, the evidence did not support Chestang's requested additional charge on self-defense. Based on the facts of this case, I do not believe that Eckoff's remarks to Chestang on the day of the fatal altercation constituted a threat; thus I believe this case is distinguishable from Quinlivan v. State, 555 So.2d 802 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), relied upon by the majority. Therefore, I dissent.