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.
The dissent was discussing whether it would be available under the facts of this case. I don't think it would be. The controlling authority clearly states that if the police are acting within the course and scope of their duties as police officers then the castle doctrine will not apply.
The court clearly left open the opportunity that the defense is available if the police have entered into criminal conduct or are otherwise acting outside their authority. An illegal entry can be a lawful exercise of police discretion. The remedy for such an illegal entry is to sue for trespass, sue for damages, and to exclude any evidence collected. In other words, the remedies are CIVIL remedies and the remedies do not include a right to beat the hell out of a police officer because you think you have some right to privacy that is being intruded upon.