holding that a defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction when he testified that he did not have the intent to kill when he fired through a closed door at an unidentified person breaking into his bedroom
How later courts described this case
- holding that a defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction when he testified that he did not have the intent to kill when he fired through a closed door at an unidentified person breaking into his bedroom
- “[O]ur Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a defendant who fires a gun in the face of a perceived attack is not entitled to a self-defense instruction if he testifies that he did not intend to shoot the attacker when he fired the gun.” (citation and emphasis omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*579 MURPHY, 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 *156 concur 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.