for the use of any deadly force. This conclusion is, in turn, based on the majority’s assessment, discussed in the preceding sections, that there was evidence that being struck in the mouth by the bottle could not and did not cause a fatal or serious head injury to the complainant. The ma jority thus concludes that appellant was entitled to instructions on the defenses of ordinary self-defense and apparent danger in the event that the jury would find him guilty of only misdemeanor assault pursuant to the lesser included offense instruction to which it determines that appellant was also entitled. On the contrary, because appellant was not entitled to an instruction on misdemeanor assault, as discussed above, because ordinary self-defense and apparent danger are not pp. 1987) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Testimony established that the
holding that instruction on use of deadly force was not required where there was no evidence that decedent had attempted to assault appellant appellant could not retreat or that decedent was armed holding that instruction on use of deadly force was required where complainant was armed with a coke bottle holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded holding that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure holding that instruction on use of deadly force was required where appellant was aware of the decedents violent history decedent had a gun in his car and appellant used force only after decedent had made an attempt to approach his car