Tex. Codes » Penal Code · TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY · CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Texas Codes

Tex. Penal Code § 9.22 (2026)

Necessity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

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.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 315 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “" Texas Penal Code § 9.22, in turn, provides in relevant part that "[c]onduct [that is otherwise criminal] is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm [and] (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm…”
Pennington v. State, 54 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.22 (l)-(3) (Vernon 1994); see also id.”
Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “[3] TEX. PEN.CODE ANN. § 9.22 (Vernon 2004). [4] TEX.”
Damian Lamon Murkledove v. State, 437 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “11 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.22 (West 2011); see id.”
Stefanoff v. State, 78 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 9.22 (West 1994). Appellant claimed that, as a result of his post-traumatic stress disorder, it was necessary for him to possess and smoke marihuana to contain the adverse symptoms associated with his disorder.”
Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “[5] Texas Penal Code § 9.22 provides that it is a defense to prosecution for otherwise criminal conduct if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh,…”
Jackson v. State, 50 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See TexPenal Code Ann. § 9.22 (Vernon 1994). Section 9.”
Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “" 41 George E. Dix & Robert O. Dawson. Texas Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 13.”
Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “[9] The defense of necessity was created in Tex. Penal Code § 9.22. [10] Accord, Auston v.”
Wallace v. State, 75 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “[3] Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 9.22 (Vernon 1994). [4] But see Booth v.”
Brazelton v. State, 947 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.22 (Vernon 1994).”
Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Tex. Penal Code, § 9.22; Williams v. State, 630 S.”
Show all 315 citing cases →
— Tex. Penal Code § 9.22(1) — 28 cases
Stefanoff v. State, 78 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App. 2002). “See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 9.22 (West 1994). Appellant claimed that, as a result of his post-traumatic stress disorder, it was necessary for him to possess and smoke marihuana to contain the adverse symptoms associated with his disorder.”
Kimberly Nicole Cormier v. State, 540 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. App. 2017).
Arnwine v. State, 20 S.W.3d 155 (Tex. App. 2000).
Fitzgerald v. State, 722 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. App. 1987).
Garcia v. State, 972 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. App. 1998).
— Tex. Penal Code § 9.22(2) — 13 cases
Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “[3] TEX. PEN.CODE ANN. § 9.22 (Vernon 2004). [4] TEX.”
Shugart v. State, 32 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App. 2000).
Garcia v. State, 972 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. App. 1998).
Bethany Grace MacIel v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023).
Travers Crumpton v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024).
— Tex. Penal Code § 9.22(3) — 5 cases
Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “[3] TEX. PEN.CODE ANN. § 9.22 (Vernon 2004). [4] TEX.”
Jared Patton Roark v. State (Tex. App. 2020).
Linda Marie Coolbaugh v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023).
Linda Marie Coolbaugh v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023).
Bowen, Lydia Hernandez (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
— Tex. Penal Code § 9.22(a) — 2 cases
Bethany Grace MacIel v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023).
NAVARRO, JEREMIAH v. the State of Texas (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
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.