Court Opinion

ID: 9876751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:32:38.158372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:14.475071
License: Public Domain

*579MURPHY, Judge, concurring
Judge Stroud's dissent reflects a stronger policy that more accurately represents what most citizens would believe our law to be and what I believe self-defense law should be in our state. However, I must *156concur in the opinion authored by Judge Dillon as it accurately reflects what our current law is in this matter.
Under the holdings of our Supreme Court, it is unlawful for a person to use a warning shot as a means of self-defense no matter how reasonable a warning shot may be instead of shooting to kill one's attacker. While I encourage the Supreme Court to reverse our ruling today and accept the reasoning of the dissent, we are bound by precedent to rule that Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense.