With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 764 F. Supp. 1042, 1048, 26 VI. 280 (D.V.I. 1991) (listing elements of voluntary manslaughter). A conviction for voluntary manslaughter requires a finding of specific intent, mitigated by heat of passion, caused by severe provocation. Id. at 1048. Carlock argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to prove that he formed the specific intent to kill or inflict such bodily injury upon Reid as likely to result in his death. At trial, the jury heard eyewitness testimony from Decatur that Carlock hit Reid in the face. Decatur also testified that Carlock struck Reid with such force that Reid’s body gave way to the impact and he fell to the ground, struck his head on the pavement and lay immobile in the street. The jury a 949 F.2d 677, 680-686, 27 V.I. 332 (3d Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). The question, therefore, is whether the

A: holding that a judge may exclude selfdefense if the facts support such a decision
B: holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant
C: holding that defendant properly raised selfdefense but passing on the applicable burden of proof for establishing selfdefense in a voluntary manslaughter prosecution in the virgin islands
D: holding the defendant sufficiently raised a selfdefense justification in a murder prosecution while thoroughly evaluating selfdefense burden of proof jurisprudence but declining to address applicable burden of proof for raising selfdefense in the virgin islands
D.