State v. Matheney

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the jury was not constitutionally required to unanimously agree on the particular statutory disqualification that defeated his self-defense claim, so long as it unanimously rejected self-defense. The court also concluded that the jury instructions adequately addressed the possible initial aggressor, did not improperly permit a finding based on words alone, and did not misstate the mens rea for recklessness-based lesser included offenses. Finally, the evidence sufficiently disproved self-defense and supported the specific intent required for intentional manslaughter with a firearm.