It is well settled that requested charges that are already substantially given and covered by the trial court's general charge are properly refused. LSA–C.Cr.P. art. 807; State v. Guillot, 470 So.2d 360 (La.App. 5 Cir.1985), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La.1985), citing State v. Simmons, 422 So.2d 138 (La.1982). Here, the instruction given to the jury correctly stated the law under LSA–R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which provides that a homicide is justifiable when committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
Subsection (3) does not apply as there is no evidence that Bobby was "committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery" of Jennifer's parents' home. State v. Guillot, 470 So.2d 360 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (1985). Subsection (4) does not apply as there is no evidence that Bobby was "attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling."
State v. Jackson, 450 So.2d 621 (La. 1984); State v. Johnson, 438 So.2d 1091 (La. 1983); State v. Marse, 365 So.2d 1319 (La. 1978). The trial court's determination that LSA-R.S. 14:20(2) applies only in a situation where the killer is a third party to a violent felony is erroneous and has been implicitly rejected in State v. Waxler, 569 So.2d 29, 30 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990); State v. Stratton, 521 So.2d 842, 845 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1988); State v. Guillot, 470 So.2d 360, 362 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985); State v. Deville, 451 So.2d 129, 133 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1984). In all of these cases, LSA-R.S. 14:20(2) has been applied where the killer was also the potential victim of a violent felony.
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). See also State v. McCarty, 421 So.2d 213 (La. 1982); State v. Felde, 422 So.2d 370 (La. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 918, 103 S.Ct. 1903, 77 L.Ed.2d 290 (1983); and State v. Guillot, 470 So.2d 360 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985). Nevertheless, the state must establish that the defendant's statement was given freely and voluntarily before it can be introduced to impeach the defendant.
It need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. La.C.Cr.P. art. 807; State v. Smith, 414 So.2d 1237 (La. 1982); State v. Jackson, 450 So.2d 621 (La. 1984); State v. Guillot, 470 So.2d 360 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985); State v. Butler, 462 So.2d 1280 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985). Failure to give a requested charge constitutes reversible error only when there is a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, State v. Marse, 365 So.2d 1319 (La. 1978); La.C.Cr.P. art. 921.