Sec. 9.03. CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case:
Smith v. State, 352 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011).
Smith v. State, 352 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011).
· cites it 2× “3d at 101 ; see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.03 ; id. §§ 9.22, .”
Kenny v. State, 292 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008).
· cites it 2× “See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.03 (Vernon 2003); see also Adelman v.”
James Lawrence Smith v. State, No. 02-09-00394-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 16, 2011).
· cites it 2× “3d at 101 ; see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.03 ; id. §§ 9.22, .”
James Lawrence Smith v. State, No. 02-09-00394-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 16, 2011).
· cites it 2× “3d at 101 ; see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.03 ; id. §§ 9.22, .”
Manxfred Jose Gonzalez v. State, No. 03-19-00081-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 26, 2021).
“See Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.03, .22, .34. The State argues that the evidence did not raise an issue as to “imminent harm” or “immediate necessity” and that, therefore, appellant was not entitled to his requested instructions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.