statutorily enumerated defense in Texas

2020At trial, counsel argued that the proposed jury questions addressed whether B.A.L. had “the ability to comply with the laws of the state of Texas.” “[A] defensive instruction is not required when the issue in question is not a statutorily-enumerated defense and merely serves to negate elements of the State’s case.” Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. Crim.

2009However, “a defensive instruction is not required when the issue in question is not a statutorily-enumerated defense and merely serves to negate elements of the State’s case.” Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (alibi defense not entitled to affirmative instruction as it is not a statutorily enumerated defense); Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) ("Normally, if the instruction is not derived from the code, it is not "applicable law."). 11 Here, there was a disputed issue of material fact that was raised in front of the jury, and there was a scintilla of evidence offered in support of the requested charge.

2009The trial court was not required to give those defensive instructions. “[A] defensive instruction is not required when the issue in question is not a statutorily-enumerated defense and merely serves to negate elements of the State’s case.” Ortiz v. State , 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 1901 , 155 L. Ed. 2d 824 (2003); accord Giesberg v. State , 984 S.W.2d 245, 248-51 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

2009However, “a defensive instruction is not required when the issue in question is not a statutorily-enumerated defense and merely serves to negate elements of the State’s case.” Ortiz v. State , 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) , cert. denied , 538 U.S. 998 , 123 S. Ct. 1901 , 155 L. Ed. 2d 824 (2003) ; Moore v. State , 143 S.W.3d 305, 315-16 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. ref’d) .

2009However, “a defensive instruction is not required when the issue in question is not a statutorily-enumerated defense and merely serves to negate elements of the State’s case.” Ortiz v. State , 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) , cert. denied , 538 U.S. 998 , 123 S. Ct. 1901 , 155 L. Ed. 2d 824 (2003) ; Moore v. State , 143 S.W.3d 305, 315-16 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. ref’d) .

2005In Giesberg v. State, the court of criminal appeals determined that defenses that have been created by the legislature that tend either to totally exonerate a defendant or to excuse or justify a defendant’s conduct so that he is absolved of culpabili ty, such as those identified in chapters eight (General Defenses to Criminal Responsibility) and Nine (Justifications for Criminal Conduct) of the penal code, require a special instruction. 984 S.W.2d 245, 248-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 1044 , 143 L.Ed.2d 51 (1999); see also Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Te

2005In Giesberg v. State, the court of criminal appeals determined that defenses that have been created by the legislature that tend either to totally exonerate a defendant or to excuse or justify a defendant's conduct so that he is absolved of culpability, *123 such as those identified in chapters eight (General Defenses to Criminal Responsibility) and Nine (Justifications for Criminal Conduct) of the penal code, require a special instruction. 984 S.W.2d 245, 248-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 1044 , 143 L.Ed.2d 51 (1999); see also Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 92

2005In Giesberg v. State, the court of criminal appeals determined that defenses that have been created by the legislature that tend either to totally exonerate a defendant or to excuse or justify a defendant’s conduct so that he is absolved of culpabili ty, such as those identified in chapters eight (General Defenses to Criminal Responsibility) and Nine (Justifications for Criminal Conduct) of the penal code, require a special instruction. 984 S.W.2d 245, 248-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 1044 , 143 L.Ed.2d 51 (1999); see also Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Te

2005In Giesberg v. State, the court of criminal appeals determined that defenses that have been created by the legislature that tend either to totally exonerate a defendant or to excuse or justify a defendant's conduct so that he is absolved of culpability, *123 such as those identified in chapters eight (General Defenses to Criminal Responsibility) and Nine (Justifications for Criminal Conduct) of the penal code, require a special instruction. 984 S.W.2d 245, 248-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 1044 , 143 L.Ed.2d 51 (1999); see also Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 92

2017See Bryant, 391 S.W.3d at 93-94 .

2015See Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (alibi defense not entitled to affirmative instruction as it is not a statutorily enumerated defense); Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) ("Normally, if the instruction is not derived from the code, it is not "applicable law."). 11 Here, there was a disputed issue of material fact that was raised in front of the jury, and there was a scintilla of evidence offered in support of the requested charge.

2009However, “a defensive instruction is not required when the issue in question is not a statutorily-enumerated defense and merely serves to negate elements of the State’s case.” Ortiz v. State , 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) , cert. denied , 538 U.S. 998 , 123 S. Ct. 1901 , 155 L. Ed. 2d 824 (2003) ; Moore v. State , 143 S.W.3d 305, 315-16 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. ref’d) .