Does anyone out there have a jury charge instruction with the new 9.32 deadly force used in self defense law? I noticed ours here on the website is a little outdated. Thanks for the help!

I haven't heard of any cases going to trial since the new "castle law" passed, so ... good luck with that, Steve.

I know lots of people who are curious to hear how the new law works (or doesn't work) in the courtroom, so please give us an update after it's all said and done!

email me at kelsey.mckay@co.travis.tx.us

I tried a case about 3 months ago and I think I have a copy of the charge that the judge sent to me. We had major self-defense arguments (of all the varieties...) and I can't remember which ones we ended up actually agreeing to put in the charge, but I can email you what I have. Additionally, I have a flow chart that I made to explain the law of self-defense to the jury (since we had a D claiming SD, but a V who used SD after the assault). IT got really confusing and the jury told me afterwards that the flow chart really helped in clarifying the law for them. I can send you both the charge and the flow chart if you shoot me an email.

Anyone else who wants me to email it to them can shoot me an email as well.

Kelsey:

What was the outcome of your case? I have yet to hear from anyone who's tried a case involving the new defense presumptions and the removal of the duty to retreat.

The facts in my case were that the victim is inside his house when he hears someone opening and closing the compartments of his truck. V goes outside and observes the D going through the outside compartments of his truck. V approaches D, D says don't come any closer. V does go closer. D whacks V over the head with a wrench. At this point, a security guard comes up and both he and the V tackle D to the ground. D resists and the V and SG kick and punch the D.

D obviously claimed self-defense and we argued that V's actions were justified as defense of property and of self. D was claiming he was assaulted first. We had to argue that even if they believed that D had a right of self defense that the extent he used was "deadly force" (given the use of the wrench). Additionally we had to justify V's actions as self defense (and expalin that given the threat to his property, and SBI and at night time, etc... that he actually had a right to use deadly force, but didn't).

Yes, it got confusing.

D took the stand--cried, saying they knocked out all his teeth (they didn't), etc. etc. In the end the jury convicted D of agg assault w/ DW but I believe they only gave him 7 years... which I thought was low, but he was old and I'm not sure he will even make it the 7.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kpm:
Yes, it got confusing.

---

That's putting it mildly. Thanks for the details!

So, it sounds like the crook tried to take advantage of the new self-defense laws that were intended to benefit the property owner, not the crook. Wow -- who could have imagined that the new law would be misused like that by the bad guys?

Oh, wait -- prosecutors did exactly that, to no avail.

At least I was forced to learn the law of self defense... and then promptly figure out how to simply explain it to the jury.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kpm:
The facts in my case were that the victim is inside his house when he hears someone opening and closing the compartments of his truck. V goes outside and observes the D going through the outside compartments of his truck. V approaches D, D says don't come any closer. V does go closer. D whacks V over the head with a wrench. At this point, a security guard comes up and both he and the V tackle D to the ground. D resists and the V and SG kick and punch the D.

---

Having worked night shift patrol for about 12 years of my law enforcement career, this sounds like the same type of call I got every night.

Just mix the facts up a little from call to call, toss in a few intoxicated & belligerent people, and make it 2:30 a.m. (or "beer-thirty" as we liked to call it) and you've just painted a picture of the life of a night shift patrolman.

It's always fun trying to sort those cases out, isn't it?

I'm still just a know-nothing 2L in law school, but I can't wait to graduate and prosecute some of those cases. It'll be just like going back to night shift patrol, except I won't have to be awake all night and I won't have to smell the liquor on their breath.

I'm glad your guy was convicted, by the way.