we did mention other variations in our opinion in Faulkner. See id. at.489, 483 A.2d at 763 (citing Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444, 86 S.W. 409 (1984), Reed v. State, 11 Tex.App. 509 (1882), and State v. Flory, 40 Wyo. 184, 276 P. 458 (Wyo.1929), as examples of cases indicating that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is applicable "where the homicide would fall within the perfect self defense doctrine but for the fault of the defendant in provoking or initiating the difficulty at the non-deadly force level,” and citing State v. Clark, 69 Kan. 576, 77 P. 287 (1904), as an example of cases recognizing the doctrine "when the defendant used unreasonable force in defending himself and, as a result, killed his opponent.”). But see Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. 249, 257, 473 A.2d 40, 44 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 300 Md. 316, 477 A.2d 1195
holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award holding that where all of the testimony established unequivocally that the appellant was the aggressor and there was no shred of evidence to indicate otherwise there was no adequate support in the evidence to generate a genuine jury issue as to selfdefense perfect or imperfect holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence holding that the trial court properly failed to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and manslaughter where there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense although there was evidence that the appellant had been drinking beer on the day of the offense where there was no evidence concerning the quantity of beer he had consumed