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.—Fort Worth 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.—Fort Worth 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.—Austin 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.—Fort Worth 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.—Texarkana 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.—Fort Worth 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.—Austin 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.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Arnwine v. State, 20 S.W.3d 155 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000).
Fitzgerald v. State, 722 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1987).
Garcia v. State, 972 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 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.—Waco 2000).
Garcia v. State, 972 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998).
Bethany Grace MacIel v. the State of Texas, No. 13-18-00586-CR (Tex. App. June 15, 2023).
Travers Crumpton v. the State of Texas, No. 01-23-00581-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 29, 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, No. 01-19-00428-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 2020).
Linda Marie Coolbaugh v. the State of Texas, No. 03-22-00318-CR (Tex. App.—Austin July 27, 2023).
Linda Marie Coolbaugh v. the State of Texas, No. 03-22-00318-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 20, 2023).
Bowen, Lydia Hernandez, No. PD-1873-03 (Tex. Crim. App. May 4, 2005).
Tex. Penal Code § 9.22(a): 2 cases
Bethany Grace MacIel v. the State of Texas, No. 13-18-00586-CR (Tex. App. June 15, 2023).
NAVARRO, JEREMIAH v. the State of Texas, No. PD-0222-22 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 6, 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.