affirmative defensive instruction in Texas

1986The court of appeals correctly quoted Warren, supra at 933: “A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence ...” In Warren we held the evidence raised selfdefense and the defendant was entitled to a charge on that issue.

1981“A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence regardless of whether it is strong, feeble, unimpeached, *504 or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion that the testimony is not entitled to belief.” Warren v. State, 565 S.W.2d 931, 933-934 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).

2018Sanders v. State, 707 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tex. Crim.

1988In Sanders v. State, 707 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), we find the following: “[A] defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence, regardless of whether it is strong, feeble, unim-peached, or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion the testimony is not entitled to belief.” But, of course, this does not mean the trial judge should so charge the jury.

2018Id.

2006“A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence regardless of whether it is strong, feeble, unimpeached, or contradicted . . . .” Brown v. State , 955 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim.

2001See Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Booth v. State, 679 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).

1998See Booth v. State, 679 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).

2024Law “A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence regardless of whether it is strong, feeble, unimpeached, or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion that the testimony is not entitled to belief.” Williams v. State, 630 S.W.2d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim.

2018As the Court of Criminal Appeals has held, "A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence regardless of whether it is strong, feeble, unimpeached, or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion that the testimony is not entitled to belief." Williams v. State , 630 S.W.2d 640 , 643 (Tex. Crim.

2009Further, a “defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence.... ” Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); VanBrackle v. State, 179 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005).

2009Further, a defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence. <EM>Hamel v. State</EM>, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2025Chavers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 457, 459 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d).

2014See Chavers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 457, 459 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd).

2010Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex. Crim.

2010Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

2009Further, a “defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence.... ” Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); VanBrackle v. State, 179 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005).

2008App 1996); VanBrackle v. State, 179 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005).

2005Id. at 84 . [3] Subsection 9.31(c) of the Texas Penal Code provides The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes that force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. [4] 117 S.W.3d at 295 . [5] Id. at 297 . [6] Appellant also makes a

2005Id. at 84 . .

2025Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim.

2016Granger, 3 S.W.3d at 38 ; Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim.

1988Hill, supra, stands for the proposition that when a defensive issue is raised by the evidence, a defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction.

1988Id.

1987Sanders v. State, 707 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tex. Crim.App.1986); Booth v. State, 679 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Lugo v. State, 667 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex. Crim.App.1984).

1986Booth v. State, 679 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Lugo v. State, 667 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Warren v. State, 565 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).

1983Misner v. State, 610 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).

1982“A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence. [T]he truth of the testimony presented is not an issue.” Misner v. State, 610 S.W.2d 502, 503 (Tex. Cr.

2024Krajcovic v. State, 393 S.W.3d 282, 286 (Tex. Crim.

2011“A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence regardless of whether the evidence raising the issue is strong, weak, unimpeached, contradicted, or unbelievable.” Hernandez v. State, 198 S.W.3d 257, 270 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d). -7- 04-10-00684-CR the proceeding would have been different.

2003Cameron v. State , 925 S.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1995, no pet.). (1) "As a general rule, an accused is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every issue raised by the evidence, regardless of whether such evidence is strong, feeble, unimpeached or contradicted, and even if the trial court has the belief that the testimony is not entitled to belief." Id . at 250.

2001See Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Booth v. State, 679 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).

2001Fincher v. State, 980 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref'd).

2001Fincher v. State, 980 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref'd).

1996Villarreal v. State, 821 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1991).

1982See, e.g., Semaire v. State, 612 S.W.2d 528 at 530 (Tex.Cr.App.1980, rehearing en banc denied 1981).