Barrett v. Commonwealth

In Barrett v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 102 (1986), the Virginia Supreme Court held that because "the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of unlawful wounding and in refusing to permit the defendant to cross-examine the victim," the defendant was entitled to a reversal of his conviction of malicious wounding and deserved a new trial. Similarly, the Court reversed his conviction for use of a firearm because that charge was contingent upon a conviction of malicious wounding.

The defendant Barrett had previously defeated the victim Gilchrist in a fistfight. Following his defeat, Gilchrist threatened Barrett, stating that their next fight "wouldn't be with fists." Barrett testified that he heard Gilchrist was "looking for [him]" and that he feared Gilchrist because of his reputation for carrying a gun.