Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ferrel v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self- defense if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim. 2014“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self- defense if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Ekern v. Stategreen2 sentences2016App. 1963) (holding that a charge was not erroneous for having an instruction on self- defense that followed, but had not been incorporated into, an application paragraph for assault); Ekern v. State, 200 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tex. Crim. 2016App. 1963) (holding that a charge was not erroneous for having an instruction on self- defense that followed, but had not been incorporated into, an application paragraph for assault); Ekern v. State, 200 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
PORTEOUS v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Porteous v. State, 259 S.W.3d 741,748 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007). 2014To be entitled to an instruction on self- defense when resisting an arrest that a defendant knows is being made by a peace officer, there must be some evidence in the record to show that (1) "before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer . . . uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search," and (2) "the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's . . . use or attempted use of greater force than necessary." Id. § 9.31(c); Porteous v. State, 259 S.W.3d 741, 748 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Id. - 12 - 04-16-00400-CR 2. 2013See Jackson v. State, 110 S.W.3d 626, 631 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (“To be entitled to an instruction on self- defense, appellant was required first to admit to the conduct charged in the indictment and then to offer evidence justifying the conduct.”); Anderson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 369, 372 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (“Self- defense is a justification for one’s actions, which necessarily requires admission that the conduct occurred. . . . | 1 | 2 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Jackson v. State, 110 S.W.3d 626, 631 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (“To be entitled to an instruction on self- defense, appellant was required first to admit to the conduct charged in the indictment and then to offer evidence justifying the conduct.”); Anderson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 369, 372 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (“Self- defense is a justification for one’s actions, which necessarily requires admission that the conduct occurred. . . . 2012Cf. Jackson v. State, 110 S.W.3d 626 , 631–32 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref‘d) (to obtain an instruction on self defense, the defendant must admit to participating in the offense). | 1 | 2 |
Haley v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Appellant acknowledges that the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on all the elements of an extraneous offense, see Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510, 515 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), but argues that an instruction on self defense was necessary because a justifiable homicide committed in self defense is not an act of misconduct. 17 Regarding extraneous offense or bad act evidence admitted during the punishment phase of trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held, [T]he question at punishment is not whether the defendant has committed a crime, but instead what sentence should be assessed | 1 | 1 |
Preston v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Preston v. State, 756 S.W.2d 22, 25 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Granger v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Granger, 3 S.W.3d at 38 ; Hudson, 145 S.W.3d at 324-25 ; Withers, 994 S.W.2d at 745 (concluding that defendant was entitled to an instruction of 12 self-defense and necessity because she admitted the conduct required to raise the self- defense issue). | 1 | 1 |
Withers v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Granger, 3 S.W.3d at 38 ; Hudson, 145 S.W.3d at 324-25 ; Withers, 994 S.W.2d at 745 (concluding that defendant was entitled to an instruction of 12 self-defense and necessity because she admitted the conduct required to raise the self- defense issue). | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630, 640 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Castaneda v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Castaneda, 28 S.W.3d at 224 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alonzo v. State
green
2 sentences2013The court further held the testimony of the defendant that he did not intend to kill Rocha did not preclude an instruction on self defense in the face of evidence that the defendant “used deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believed the 9 force was immediately necessary to protect himself against Rocha’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.” Id. at 783 . 2013The court further held the testimony of the defendant that he did not intend to kill Rocha did not preclude an instruction on self defense in the face of evidence that the defendant “used deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believed the 9 force was immediately necessary to protect himself against Rocha’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.” Id. at 783 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Gamino, Cesar Alejandro
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cesar Alejandro Gamino v. State
green
1 sentence2017Appellant Was Entitled to a Self Defense Charge “A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self defense if the issue [of self defense] is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.5 When reviewing a trial court’s decision denying a request for a self defense instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant’s requested submission.6 A trial court errs in denying a self defense instruction if there is some evidence, from any | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Vasquez v. State
green
1 sentence2016On October 7, 2015 the parties were ordered to brief the following issues: A. Whether the standard for harm set out in Vasquez v. State, 830 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Almanza v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shaw v. State
green
1 sentence2012Id. “[A] defense is supported (or raised) by the evidence if there is some evidence, from any source, on each element of the defense that, if believed by the jury, would support a rational inference that that element is true.” Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 , 657–58 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hudson v. State
green
1 sentence2009See Granger, 3 S.W.3d at 38 ; Hudson, 145 S.W.3d at 324-25 ; Withers, 994 S.W.2d at 745 (concluding that defendant was entitled to an instruction of 12 self-defense and necessity because she admitted the conduct required to raise the self- defense issue). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Romero v. State
neutral
1 sentence1990In Romero v. State, 663 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, pet. ref’d), the court held that the defendant was entitled to an instruction on self defense under section 9.32 of the Penal Code, since she had used deadly force to repel the deceased’s attack. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.