Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) 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 the 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.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
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; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Notes of Decisions
Braughton, Christopher Ernest, 569 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “had ceased by the time of the shooting, we agree with the court of appeals that a rational jury could have determined that the physical assault itself was not of such a nature that it would give rise to a reasonable belief regarding the necessity of deadly force.”
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “For example, Texas Penal Code § 9.31 now provides that "[t]he actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A)…”
Villarreal, Rene Daniel, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “See Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31, 9.32(a). Based on that law, the trial court instructed the jury that a person is justified in using deadly force when the actor reasonably believed that the force was immediately necessary to protect himself against another person’s use or attempted…”
Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “I agree with the majority that the statutory defenses of self-defense under Texas Penal Code, section 9.31, and necessity under section 9.”
Carmen v. State, 276 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008).
· cites it 7× “Compare TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31 (Vernon Supp.”
Morales, Jose Manuel, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “See Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31 (force is justified “when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect” against unlawful force), 9.”
Lane v. State, 957 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997).
· cites it 10× “See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31 (Vernon Supp.”
Johnson v. State, 271 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008).
· cites it 6× “Laws 3586 , 3598 (current version at TEX. PEN.CODE ANN. § 9.31 (Vernon Supp.2008)); Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg.”
Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “, joined. HOLCOMB, J., concurring, in which PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ.”
Boget v. State, 74 S.W.3d 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.31 (Vernon 1997).”
Benavides v. State, 992 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999).
· cites it 6× “Laws 883 , 901 (TEX. PENAL CODE § 9.31, since amended); Act of May 29, 1983, 68th Leg, R.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a): 315 cases
Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
“, joined. HOLCOMB, J., concurring, in which PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ.”
Morales, Jose Manuel, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
“See Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31 (force is justified “when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect” against unlawful force), 9.”
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
“For example, Texas Penal Code § 9.31 now provides that "[t]he actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A)…”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(1): 4 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(1)(2): 1 case
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(1)(A): 1 case
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(1)(B): 3 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(1)(C): 1 case
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(2): 5 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(3): 2 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(4): 1 case
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(C)(3): 1 case
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b): 31 cases
Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
“I agree with the majority that the statutory defenses of self-defense under Texas Penal Code, section 9.31, and necessity under section 9.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(1): 36 cases
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
“For example, Texas Penal Code § 9.31 now provides that "[t]he actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A)…”
Villarreal, Rene Daniel, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
“See Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31, 9.32(a). Based on that law, the trial court instructed the jury that a person is justified in using deadly force when the actor reasonably believed that the force was immediately necessary to protect himself against another person’s use or attempted…”
Lane v. State, 957 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31 (Vernon Supp.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(2): 15 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(4): 60 cases
Braughton, Christopher Ernest, 569 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
“had ceased by the time of the shooting, we agree with the court of appeals that a rational jury could have determined that the physical assault itself was not of such a nature that it would give rise to a reasonable belief regarding the necessity of deadly force.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(4)(A): 3 cases
Braughton, Christopher Ernest, 569 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
“had ceased by the time of the shooting, we agree with the court of appeals that a rational jury could have determined that the physical assault itself was not of such a nature that it would give rise to a reasonable belief regarding the necessity of deadly force.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(5): 13 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(5)(A): 18 cases
Lee v. State, 259 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008).
Carmen v. State, 276 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008).
“Compare TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31 (Vernon Supp.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(5)(a): 1 case
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(c): 26 cases
Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
“I agree with the majority that the statutory defenses of self-defense under Texas Penal Code, section 9.31, and necessity under section 9.”
Benavides v. State, 992 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999).
“Laws 883 , 901 (TEX. PENAL CODE § 9.31, since amended); Act of May 29, 1983, 68th Leg, R.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(c)(1): 7 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(c)(2): 3 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(c)(l)(2): 1 case
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(d): 3 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(e): 7 cases
Morales, Jose Manuel, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
“See Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31 (force is justified “when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect” against unlawful force), 9.”
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.