Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
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
75
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See TEX. PENAL CODE § 9.41. When a defense is raised by the evidence, the State bears the burden of persuasion in disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Hernandez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996).
· cites it 3× “The defense of protection of property is defined by Texas Penal Code §§ 9.41 and 9.42. Section 9.”
Alexis Elaina Walker v. State, 557 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018).
“TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.41 (West 2011). 9 (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes[4] the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of .”
Bennett v. State, 235 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
“See Tex Pen.Code §§ 9.41, 9.42 (protection of property), 9.”
Anthony Wert v. State, 383 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012).
“] Tex. Penal Code § 9.41(b)(1). Defense of property, therefore, involves an intentional use of force to recover one’s property, whereas counsel’s argument that appellant accidentally pushed his girlfriend centers on a lack of intent.”
MacDonald v. State, 761 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989).
· cites it 2× “Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 and 9.31(c)1 provide that a person is justified in using force when and to the extent reasonably necessary to protect his property or to protect himself against a peace officer's use of greater force than necessary.”
Molitor v. State, 827 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992).
· cites it 4× “Since deadly force was used by the appellant, we must look to Tex.Penal Code Ann. §§ 9.41 and 9.42 (1974).”
Hudson v. State, 145 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004).
“See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.41 (a) (Vernon 2003) (providing that "[a] person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent…”
Banks v. State, 624 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981).
· cites it 4× “See: Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 9.41, et seq. (Vernon 1974).”
Freeman v. State, 230 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 9.41(a) (Vernon 2003).”
Young v. State, 542 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018).
· cites it 2× “, not designated for publication) (citing TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 9.41(a), 9.43. Section 9.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.41(a): 17 cases
Freeman v. State, 230 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 9.41(a) (Vernon 2003).”
Young v. State, 542 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018).
“, not designated for publication) (citing TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 9.41(a), 9.43. Section 9.”
Hernandez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996).
“The defense of protection of property is defined by Texas Penal Code §§ 9.41 and 9.42. Section 9.”
Tex. Penal Code § 9.41(b): 5 cases
Tex. Penal Code § 9.41(b)(1): 2 cases
Anthony Wert v. State, 383 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012).
“] Tex. Penal Code § 9.41(b)(1). Defense of property, therefore, involves an intentional use of force to recover one’s property, whereas counsel’s argument that appellant accidentally pushed his girlfriend centers on a lack of intent.”
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.