Changes

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.  

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.

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.

[[Category:State Court Cases]]

[[Category:State Court Cases]]