Yes I did. The second opinion modifies the first. The second opinion is controlling.
Are you a lawyer?
Yeah, it says if the legislature wants to provide an affirmative defense in case of unlawful entry, it can write a statute to that effect.
The second opinion does not change the blockquote section I provided above.
Did you read the dissent?
Obviously, it's not in any way controlling, but the dissent wants to at least explore whether or not the castle doctrine statute permits the affirmative defense jury instruction.
By my reasoning, the dissent supports a conclusion that the affirmative defense jury instruction is not available.
The line drawing by the majority, at "battery," is equivalent to saying the defendant was charged. Well, yeah, and if he's not charged, then he needs no affirmative defense.
-- Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available --
Heh. Just like the Massachusetts case cited by the majority.