State of Tennessee v. Dennis Morgan - Dissenting

I am unable to join with the majority’s holding that the jury instructions as submitted “deprived the defendant of right to present a defense.” First, I find the defendant to be the beneficiary of a gratuitous self-defense instruction based upon the proof introduced at trial. Not every cry of fear from a defendant justifies an instruction on self-defense. The test for determining whether the defense should be instructed is an objective one, not subjective. State v. Bult, 989 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). Nonetheless, even assuming the instruction was warranted, I find that the error did not infringe upon the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense, as the majority finds, because the trial court submitted to the jury a self-defense instruction. The question, I believe, is whether omission of the single word “attempted” from the self-defense instruction, when viewed within the entire context of the instruction, was confusing,misleading, or prejudicial. State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 351-52 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Bonam, 7 S.W.3d 87, 89-90 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Because I find that the error did not affect the result of the trial on its merits, I find the error harmless. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).