William Ben Darby, the Huntsville police officer convicted of murder for shooting and killing a suicidal man five years ago, will get a new trial.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals today released a unanimous opinion reversing Darby’s conviction and sending the case back to Madison County for a new trial.

The appeals court ruled that Madison County Circuit Judge Donna Pate should have instructed the jury to decide the case from the perspective of a reasonable police officer.

“The opinion confirms our position that police officers are under a different standard when it comes to a self-defense situation,” said Robert Tuten, one of Darby’s defense attorneys. “It’s different than the average person because police are expected to go into dangerous situations as part of their job.”

Darby is serving a 25-year sentence in prison. He shot and killed Jeff Parker on April 3, 2018, after Parker called police, threatening to shoot himself in his own home.

Though the court reversed his conviction, Darby will remain in prison as the Alabama Attorney General’s Office considers whether to ask for a rehearing. The state could appeal the appellate court’s decision to the state Supreme Court.

“We have the evidence and certainly we’ll put it before a jury again,” Rob Broussard, the district attorney of Madison County, told AL.com. “This is the system we have and I trust in the system, and this happens. We’ve had it happen before on other cases.”

Tuten told AL.com that Darby was happy to learn of the appeals court decision this morning.

“He knew he was right,” Tuten said. “He knew he didn’t break the law or do anything wrong.”

The appeals court ruled that Judge Pate erred in declining to give the jury the following instruction requested by Darby’s attorneys: “The reasonableness of an officer’s actions in using deadly force must be objectively reasonable judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, the fact that officers are forced to make split-second decisions, and in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the time.”

In their opinion, the appeals court judges wrote, “Although the trial court was not required to use the precise language in Darby’s requested instruction, the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury, in some fashion, that it must evaluate Darby’s use of deadly force from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in the same situation.”

Editor’s note: This breaking story will be updated.