## Facts

- Arthur Carroll and others went to Nathaniel Damian Marr’s home intending to rob him; Marr was absent, and Marr’s cousin/housemate, Ronald Muse, was shot and killed during the incident.
- After learning of Muse’s death, Marr sought Carroll and Kevin Jackson to confront them about their involvement.
- Marr and Curtis Alston went to Carroll’s home in a stolen van; Marr carried a Mac-11 semiautomatic pistol.
- As Carroll approached a taxicab, Marr and Alston approached from behind the cab and opened fire; Carroll was killed and the cab driver, Jimmy Abass, was wounded.
- Marr did not testify; his self-defense theory was presented through statements to police claiming he was fearful and that Carroll made a threatening movement (reaching toward his waistband), prompting Marr to shoot.
- Marr was convicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree assault, and two handgun offenses.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed for failure to give Marr’s requested supplemental self-defense instructions; the State obtained review.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Marr’s requested supplemental jury instructions stating that reasonableness must be judged by the facts as they appeared to the defendant, including that what is unreasonable to a “calm mind” may be reasonable under the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant.
2. Whether the standard instructions given on perfect and imperfect self-defense, read as a whole, adequately and correctly stated Maryland law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated Marr’s convictions.
- The trial court’s instructions on perfect self-defense and imperfect self-defense, considered as a whole, fairly covered the applicable law.
- The trial court did not err in refusing the requested supplemental “appearance” and “calm mind” language because it risked confusing the objective reasonableness requirement for perfect self-defense and blurring the distinction between perfect and imperfect self-defense.
- Any permissible additional clarification was not required where the charge already conveyed the governing standards and the defendant showed no reversible instructional prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; refusal to give a requested instruction is not error if the substance is fairly covered by the instructions given.
- Perfect self-defense requires both (1) an actual belief of imminent danger and necessity of deadly force and (2) an objectively reasonable belief under the circumstances.
- Imperfect self-defense applies when the defendant actually believes deadly force is necessary but the belief is objectively unreasonable; it mitigates malice and may reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter but does not exonerate.
- Trial courts may refuse supplemental self-defense language that could misstate or dilute the objective reasonableness requirement, or conflate perfect and imperfect self-defense.

## Conclusion

The court held that standard instructions correctly explaining perfect and imperfect self-defense were sufficient, and that additional language emphasizing how events “appeared to the defendant” could confuse the objective reasonableness element; accordingly, the refusal to give Marr’s requested supplemental instructions was not reversible error and his convictions were reinstated.


State v. Marr, 362 Md. 467, 765 A.2d 645 (Md. 2001)