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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 2007).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 9.41(a) (Vernon 2003).”
Young v. State, 542 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App. 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. 2007).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 9.41(a) (Vernon 2003).”
Young v. State, 542 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App. 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. 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. 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.