issue of self defense in Texas

2025Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex. Crim.

2023The issue of self defense is a fact issue to be determined by the jury, and “‘[a] jury verdict of guilty is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-defense theory.’” Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 609 . (quoting Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 ).

2024See Rodriguez, 629 S.W.3d at 231 (citing Ferrel, 55 S.W.3d at 591 ).

2007Ferrel v. State , 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim.

2016Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim.

2018“The proper predicate for the specific violent prior act by the deceased is some act of aggression that tends to raise the issue of self- defense, which the violent act may then help clarify.” Torres v. State, 117 S.W.3d 891, 895 (Tex. Crim.

2015“The proper predicate for the specific violent prior act by the deceased is some act of aggression that tends to raise the issue of self- defense, which the violent act may then help clarify.” Torres v. State, 117 S.W.3d 891, 895 (Tex. Crim.

2024A. Standard of Review & Applicable Law In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to overcome the issue of self- defense, we ask whether “[t]here is sufficient evidence in the record to rationally support the jury’s rejection of appellant’s version of the events.” Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 611 (Tex. Crim.

2023The issue of self defense is a fact issue to be determined by the jury, and “‘[a] jury verdict of guilty is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-defense theory.’” Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 609 . (quoting Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 ).

2018Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2018“A trial court errs in denying a self defense instruction if there is some evidence, from any source, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, that will support the elements of self defense.” Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2008Miller v. State, 177 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist. 2005, pet. ref’d).

2008Miller v. State, 177 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist. 2005, pet. ref’d).

2007Dyson v. State , 672 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex. Crim.

2007Dyson v. State, 672 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex. Crim.

2003McDuff v. State , 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim.

2003McDuff v. State , 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim.

2001Preston v. State , 756 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd).

2001Preston v. State , 756 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd).

2020See Smith, 676 S.W.2d at 585 (“[T]o justify the submission of a charge to the jury on the issue of self- defense, there must be some evidence in the record to show that the defendant was in some apprehension or fear of being the recipient of the unlawful use of force from the complainant.”); Lavern v. State, 48 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d) (“While a non-testifying defendant may be entitled to a charge on self-defense, it is rare for the defense to be raised when the defendant fails to testify.”). 8 The record must contain some evidence or “observable manife

2011Based on section 9.31, the court of criminal appeals has stated that “in order to justify the submission of a charge to the jury on the issue of self- defense, there must be some evidence in the record to show that the defendant was in some 11 apprehension or fear of being the recipient of the unlawful use of force from the complainant.” Smith, 676 S.W.2d at 585 .

1993Luck v. State , 588 S.W.2d 371, 374-75 (Tex. Crim.

1984Luck v. State, 588 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Crim.App.1979).

2024Although Reeves reviewed the comparable charge error for “some harm” rather than applying the higher egregious-harm standard applicable here, see Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816–17; see also Elizondo, 487 S.W.3d at 204–05 (similar), the court’s sharp circumstances, reasonably calculated or intended to provoke a difficulty or an attack by deceased upon the Defendant, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, then in such event, Defendant’s right of self defense would in no way be abridged, impaired, or lessened, and if you so find, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will decide the issue

2020See VanBrackle, 179 S.W.3d at 713 (quoting Reed, 703 S.W.2d at 385 ).

2020See VanBrackle, 179 S.W.3d at 713 (quoting Reed, 703 S.W.2d at 385 ).

2020See Smith, 676 S.W.2d at 585 (“[T]o justify the submission of a charge to the jury on the issue of self- defense, there must be some evidence in the record to show that the defendant was in some apprehension or fear of being the recipient of the unlawful use of force from the complainant.”); Lavern v. State, 48 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d) (“While a non-testifying defendant may be entitled to a charge on self-defense, it is rare for the defense to be raised when the defendant fails to testify.”). 8 The record must contain some evidence or “observable manife

2017See Walters, 247 S.W.3d at 214 ; Valentine, 587 S.W.2d at 431 ; see also TEX.

2015See Wilkerson v. State, 920 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (“If the issue of the existence of self-defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury that if it believes that the defendant was acting in self-defense or has a reasonable doubt thereof, it must acquit the defendant.”); Russell v. State, 834 S.W.2d 79, 81-82 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref’d) (holding that Section 2.03(d) of the Penal Code requires the trial court to instruct the jurors that they must acquit the accused if they have a reasonable doubt on the issue of self- defense, an

2015See Wilkerson v. State, 920 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (“If the issue of the existence of self-defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury that if it believes that the defendant was acting in self-defense or has a reasonable doubt thereof, it must acquit the defendant.”); Russell v. State, 834 S.W.2d 79, 81-82 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref’d) (holding that Section 2.03(d) of the Penal Code requires the trial court to instruct the jurors that they must acquit the accused if they have a reasonable doubt on the issue of self- defense, an

2014See Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Tex. Crim.