self-defense instruction in Texas

2025When a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, “the State has the burden of persuasion in disproving the evidence of self-defense,” but it is not required to “affirmatively produce evidence refuting the self-defense claim, but rather . . . to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

2024App. 1992) (en banc) (quoting Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 ; see also Valverde, 490 S.W.3d at 528 (recognizing same in the context of a self-defense claim).

2024See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594 (stating a defendant that raises a self-defense claim has the burden of producing evidence to support the defense and the State only has the burden of persuasion to rebut the defense).

2019That is, a defendant who raises self-defense to defeat a murder charge bears the initial burden to produce some evidence to support his self-defense claim.11 Once the defendant satisfies this burden of production, the burden of persuasion rests with the State to disprove the defense.12 “This burden does not require the production of additional evidence rebutting self-defense; it requires the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”13 When the trier of fact finds the defendant guilty, there is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-defense claim.14 Our sister court in Hou

2025Id. 11 The defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a self-defense claim.

2025This is consistent with his requesting a self-defense instruction at trial since “a defensive instruction is only appropriate when the defendant’s defensive evidence essentially admits to every element of the offense including the culpable mental state, but interposes [a] justification to excuse the otherwise criminal conduct.” Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647, 659 (Tex. Crim.

2019A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense instruction if he claims, through either his testimony or the testimony of others, that he “did not perform the assaultive acts alleged, or that he did not have the requisite culpable mental state, or both.” VanBrackle, 179 S.W.3d at 715 .

2015See Carmen v. State, 276 S.W.3d 538, 546-47 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. ref'd) (concluding that the erroneous omission of a self-defense instruction resulted in some harm); Johnson v. State, 271 S.W.3d 359, 368-69 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. ref'd) (same); Guilbedu v. State, 193 S.W.3d 156, 161 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (same); Van-Brackle v. State, 179 S.W.3d 708, 716-17 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) (same).

2016Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913-14 ; Shannon, __S.W.3d at __, 2015 WL 6394922 , at *3. 5 We review the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury’s rejection of a self-defense claim under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.3 Shannon, __S.W.3d at __, 2015 WL 6394922 , at *3 (applying standard to jury’s rejection of self-defense claim); Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138, 144 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (same); see also Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 (distinguishing standard of review for defensive claims in which State bears the burden of persuasion and affirmative defenses in whi

2015App. 1991); see also Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 , 144–47 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (applying Saxton and Zuliani to the jury’s rejection of the defendant’s self-defense and defense-of-third-person theories).

2023A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction when that defensive 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.” Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2023Merits Analysis Gutierrez references Gamino, 537 S.W.3d at 510–12, in support of his contention that the trial court reversibly erred by refusing his request for a self-defense instruction in the jury charge.

2023“A trial court errs to refuse a self-defense instruction if there is some evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, that will support its elements.” Id. “[I]f the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, does not establish self-defense, the defendant is not entitled to an instruction on the issue.” Gaspar v. State, 327 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (quoting Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim.

2016App. 2006). 6 Id. 5 think about the credibility of the defense.”7 “On the other hand, if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, does not establish self-defense, the defendant is not entitled to an instruction on the issue.”8 The elements of a self-defense claim are set forth in section 9.31 of the Penal Code, which provides that “a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.”9 “Thus, in order

2019See Nailor, 149 S.W.3d at 133 . 19 To qualify for a self-defense instruction, the defendant must meet the requirements set out in sections 9.31 and 9.32 of the Texas Penal Code.

2017The admonition that even “weak” or “contradicted” evidence may form the basis of a self-defense instruction does not mean that a trial court must parse the defensive evidence to determine whether a complete confession may be “infer[red]” or “implied.” 8 It simply means that the court should take all of the defensive evidence as credible and determine, on that assumption, whether a crime was admitted that was nevertheless justified.9 If not, the court may rightly conclude that defendant is not asking for an acquittal on the grounds that his otherwise-criminal conduct was justified—he is asking

2015CODE § 9.31. 173 See Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835, 838 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (discussing defense of necessity as justification); MacDonald v. State, 761 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston 35 of the conduct.174 To raise the issue of self-defense, appellant must admit the committed offense and then offer self-defense as justification.175 When the defensive evidence merely negates the necessary culpable mental state, it will not suffice to entitle the defendant to a self-defense instruction.176 A self-defense instruction is only appropriate when the defendant’s defensive evidence essentially admits

2015CODE § 9.31. 173 See Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835, 838 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (discussing defense of necessity as justification); MacDonald v. State, 761 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston 35 of the conduct.174 To raise the issue of self-defense, appellant must admit the committed offense and then offer self-defense as justification.175 When the defensive evidence merely negates the necessary culpable mental state, it will not suffice to entitle the defendant to a self-defense instruction.176 A self-defense instruction is only appropriate when the defendant’s defensive evidence essentially admits

2023See Hill v. State, 99 S.W.3d 248, 253 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Wilkerson v. State, 881 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Tex. Crim.

2014App. 1987); and Hill v. State, 99 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d), to support his contention that he is entitled to a self-defense instruction.

2019We review sufficiency challenges to the jury’s rejection of a self-defense claim under the standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 318– 19 (1979); Alexander v. State, No. XX-XXXXXXX-CR, 2018 WL 5919129 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 13, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2019When a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s implicit rejection of a self-defense claim, “we look not to whether the State presented evidence which refuted appellant’s self-defense testimony, but rather we determine whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of [the offense] beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt.” Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 ; see also Jackson v

2015A “defendant is not entitled to a self-defense instruction if the evidence establishes as a matter of law that one of the exceptions to self-defense listed in section 9.31(b) applies.” Johnson, 157 S.W.3d at 50 ; Williams v. State, 35 S.W.3d 783, 786 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, pet. ref’d); see also TEX.

2015If the “evidence is undisputed that force was not justified as a matter of law because of section 9.31(b)(5), then a self-defense instruction is barred.” Williams, 35 S.W.3d at 786 .

2026See id.

2024See Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 611–12 (although appellant pointed to “numerous weaknesses in [the witness’s] testimony, those weaknesses were not so significant that they rise to the level of establishing that it would have been irrational for the jury to credit any part of her testimony whatsoever,” and the jury was therefore free to believe her testimony that the defendant acted intentionally in shooting his victim and reject the defendant’s self-defense claim).

1998Because appellant failed to either request a self-defense instruction or object to the instruction given, this case implicates our recent decision in Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

1998Because appellant failed to either request a self-defense instruction or object to the instruction given, this case implicates our recent decision in Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

2019Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 ; see Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (“[T]he actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.”). 24 Assuming that Martinez’s statement that Juanita slapped him first warranted a self-defense instruction, and assuming that the trial court erred by failing to give the requested instruction, we look first to the jury charge as a whole in analyzing whether

2018When some evidence, if believed, supports a self-defense claim, but other evidence, if believed, supports a conviction, we “will not weigh in on this fact-specific determination, as that is a function reserved for a properly instructed jury.” Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 820 (Tex. Crim.

2021Disagreeing defendant was harmed, the Court of Criminal Appeals observed “the success of appellant’s self-defense claim boiled down to whether the jury would accept that, when he shot [the victim], he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from [the victim’s] use of deadly force.” Id. at 607, 609.

2019Disagreeing that appellant was harmed, the court of criminal appeals observed that “the success of appellant’s self-defense claim boiled down to whether the jury would accept that, when he shot [the victim], he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from [the victim’s] use of deadly force.” Id. at 607, 609.

2022Upon request, a trial court must include a self-defense instruction in its charge if such a defense “is raised by the evidence.” Jordan, 593 S.W.3d at 343 (citing Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2021“A trial court errs to refuse a self-defense instruction if there is some evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, that will support its elements.” Id. (citing Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2026On these facts, specifically, we conclude that Bowen’s actions in pushing West away, “at most, rose to the level of provocation and [could have] entitled [West] to a self-defense instruction.” See Nick v. State, No. 12-24-00177-CR, 2025 WL 657293 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 28, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Garza-Ramirez v. State, Nos. 04-15-00420-CR & 04-15-00421-CR, 2016 WL 1128277 , at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 23, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“holding that victim’s testimony that she hit defendant and continued to hit

2015Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Tex. Crim.

2023In seeking a self-defense instruction, Preston testified that he “wasn’t going to take any chances with [the victim] . . . shooting [him] with [his] own pistol.” Id. at 23 .

2011See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.31 (a) (West 2011) (providing that the use of force against another for self-defense is justified "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"); id. § 9.32 (West 2011) (providing that the use of deadly force requires a showing that the use of deadly force is immediately necessary); Preston v. State, 756 S.W.2d 22, 25 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ ref'd) ("The mere fact that the accused `believed' the complainant might in some mann

2025See Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 780 (noting that a factfinder may draw an inference of guilt from the circumstance of flight); Patterson v. State, 606 S.W.3d 3 , 27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2020, pet. ref’d) (looking to appellant’s post-murder conduct in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting guilt); Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 781 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d) (referencing flight from the scene of a crime as evidence a jury could consider in rejecting a self-defense claim).

2024App. 2007) (noting 12 that a factfinder may draw an inference of guilt from the circumstance of flight); Patterson v. State, 606 S.W.3d 3 , 27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2020, pet. ref’d) (looking to appellant’s post-murder conduct in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting guilt); Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 781 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d) (referencing flight from the scene of a crime as evidence a jury could consider in rejecting a self-defense claim).

2019App. 2010) (citing Martinez as an exemplar of cases which “ignored the confession and avoidance doctrine altogether” by granting the defendant access to a self-defense instruction without admitting the culpable mental state), with Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778, 783 (Tex. Crim.

2015Ramos’ only defense at trial was self-defense…the State contends that rendition of these apparently inconsistent verdicts is not proof that the jury believed Ramos’s self-defense claim, and that verdict inconsistency does not justify acquittal or a new trial grant on the aggravated assault charge…” Id. 2015 WL 6653231 at Slip Op 1.6 The El Paso Court of Appeals, on rehearing, stated the core issue: “Ramos’ defense of the new trial grant on appeal rests heavily on Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2011).

2017In Dyson, the court of criminal appeals considered whether a self-defense instruction was required when the evidence established provocation as a matter of law. 672 S.W.2d at 463–64.

2017Id. 7 Similarly, in Bonner, this Court concluded that the trial court did not err in denying a self-defense instruction where provocation was established as a matter of law. 2015 WL 4141114 , at *3.

2015While the jury did reject the appellant’s self-defense claim, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a “jury's rejection of self- defense at guilt-innocence does not necessarily mean that, given an instruction on sudden passion at punishment, it would have rejected that theory as well.” Trevino, 100 S.W.3d at 242-43 .

2015DUBOSE PRESIDING ***************************************** APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ***************************************** FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ^®?: Leonardo Rivas, Pro Se 0CT29 2Gi5 Medina County Jail 801 Ave. y Abel Acosta, Clerk Hondo, Texas 78861 ISSUE PRESENTED Whether, for purposes of determining whether an appellant was harmed from a trial court's error in denying a sudden passion instruction, sufficient evidence contradicting a self-defense claim is sufficient to establish the absence of harm when the jury could have rejected appellant's self-defen

2025Id. (citing Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2020Cf. Juarez, 308 S.W.3d at 405–06; see Williams v. State, 314 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2010, pet. ref’d); see also Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647, 659 (Tex. Crim.