In Koritta v. State, 263 Ga. 703, 705, n. 2 (438 S.E.2d 68) (1994) the Supreme Court noted that "'mutually exclusive' or 'inconsistent' defenses are presented to the jury when there is evidence to support both." The Court held that, because the evidence in that case would "support a finding that the shooting was either accidental or justified," it was for the jury to "determine the truth from among the conflicting available inferences." Thus, the Court recognized that, even though two defenses may be mutually exclusive, the evidence might support a charge on both, requiring the jury to determine which, if either, of the defenses is applicable.