State v. Marr, 765 A.2d 645 (2001)

Facts: Marr and a confederate (Alston) approached the rear of a waiting taxicab and shot Carroll, who was about to enter. Three days earlier, Carroll and Jackson had robbed Marr's home, killed Marr's cousin Muse, and Marr had been looking for them. At trial, Marr testified that he and Alston went to "talk to" Carroll, that they were armed for protection, and that Carroll appeared to "grab at his waist as if to draw a weapon." The trial court instructed on perfect and imperfect self-defense but refused two additional instructions Marr requested. The Court of Special Appeals reversed.
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing additional instructions on subjective belief.
Rule: Perfect self-defense = objectively reasonable + subjective belief in elements → complete acquittal. Imperfect self-defense = subjective but objectively unreasonable belief in imminence or necessity → reduces murder to manslaughter (negates malice). The two are distinct, and instructions must preserve that line.
Analysis: Marr's requested instructions, in isolation, could blur the distinction by allowing the jury to call a wholly unreasonable cognitive perception "reasonable." The trial court's pattern instructions adequately covered both perfect and imperfect SD; the Court of Special Appeals erred in reversing.
Judgment: Reversed (i.e., the trial court was correct).

Reading: pp. 605–15. See Self-Defense.