### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 39 -C R

______________________________ BO BB Y C. BEA RD, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 76th J udicial District Court

Morris County , Texas Trial Court No. 9560

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issBe ard te stified that he shot " about four times," which was a ll the bullets he had in his gun. 1 Th e State argue s th a t a

se lf -d e fe ns e ins tr

uc tio n is e ith e r pr e c lud e d or lim ite d o n th e se fa c ts 2 beca use B ear d was c onvicted of de adly conduct by

firing at a ha

bitation. W e do not re ach the issues relating to the inter action betwe en the elements of Sec tion 22.05(b)(2) a nd self-de fense as it relate s to another pe rson. H er e, we c onclude the e vidence does not raise self-de fense . Any discussion reg ardingthe application of law of self-de fense to this situation in which the targ et is a human a nd the charg ed conduct deals with dischar g ing a firea rm in the direc tion of a habitation is bey ond the sc op e of thi s a pp e a l. 2

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Thoug h there is contrar

y testimony , Bobby

C. Bea rd say s he had been shot at ea rlier on October

25, 2006, by

Renaldo F razier a s Be ard dr ove by the Daing erf ield mobile-home re sidence of L ola Ma y He nd ri x, Re na ldo ' s mo the r. I n th e imm e diate a ft e rm a th of tha t e ve nt, B e ard

dr ov e to his ne arb y

re sid e nc e , re tr ie ve d a

ha nd g un , a nd dr ov e by the He nd ri x re sid e nc e a g a in. Ac c or din g to Be ard' s testimony , Renaldo, st anding betwee n two car s parke d just in front of the Hendr ix residenc e,
a g a in s ho t a t B e ard ' s c ar. Th e re su lt w a s B e ard ' s f ir inga t le a st f

our, may be a s ma ny a s se ve n, sh ots 1 to w ar d Re n a ld o . I n s id e th e r e s id e n c e a t t h e ti me w e r e H e n dr ix a

n d h e r thr e e - y e ar - o ld

g r andson. At least three of B ear d' s shots hit the re sidence , shatteringwindows in the bedroom a nd kitchen. A Morris County jury found Be ard g uilty of dea dly conduct a

nd assessed punishment at ten y ear s' confine ment and a $ 5,000.00 fine. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.05 (Ve rnon 2003). Be ard' s appea l urg es one point of e rror : that the trial court e rre d by ref using to instruct the jury

on self-de fense

. Be cause we conclude (1) the evidenc e did not raise the issue of self- defe nse, 2

and (2 ) n o h arm

re su lte d f ro m any e rr or , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.3

Appellate review of error in a jury char g e involves a two- step proce ss. Ab dn or v . S tat e , 871 S
. W
. 2 d 7 2 6 , 7 3 1 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 )

. In i t i a l l y , w e m u s td e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

e r r o r o c c u r r e d

. If so, we must then evaluate whether sufficie nt ha rm resulted from the err or to r equire reve rsal. Id. at 731–32. ( 1) TheEv ide nc e Di d No t R ais e theIs su e of S e lf- De fe ns e A per son commits a felony offe nse i f he or she knowing ly discharg es a firea rm at or in the d i re ct i o no f a h ab i t at i o n , b u i l d i n g, o r v eh i cl e a n d i s re ck l es s as t o wh et h er

t h e h ab i t at i o n , b u i l d i n g,
or vehicle is oc cupied. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.05(b)( 2), (e ). Unde r subpar ag raph ( b)(2) , two culpable me ntal states must be shown: the ac tor must knowingly discharg e a f

irea rm at or in the direc tion of a bui lding and be re ckless as to whe ther the building is occupied. See Y an de ll v . S

tat e , 46 S.W .3d 357, 361 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref' d). I t is undisputed that Be ard' s shooting the g un was de adly

forc e. Spe c ia l rul e s g ov e rn the us e of de a dly fo rc e in s e lf

-d e fe ns e . " De a dly

fo rc e " is f

or c e that is intended or kn o wn b y t h e ac tor to cause death or serious bodily

injury , or for ce that is capable of causing death or serious bodi ly injury in the m anner of i ts use or intended use. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9. 01 (3 ) ( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). " Se ri ou s b od ily inj ur y " is b od ily

inj ur y that c re a te s a substantial risk of death or that ca uses death, serious perma nent disfig ureme nt, or protra cted loss or impairment of t he func tion of any bodily member or

org an. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.07(a) (46) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008).A per son is just i fi ed , u n d er Sec tion 9.31, in usi ng forc e ag ainst another w hen and to the 3 de g re e he or

sh e re a so na

bly be lie ve s th e fo rc e is i mme diate ly ne c e ssa ry to p ro te c t himse lf or

he rs e lf ag ainst the other' s u s e o r attempted use of unlawf ul force . T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9.31(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). At the tim e B e ard

c omm itt e d th is o ff

e ns e —in Oc tob e r 20 06 —a de fe nd ant w ho us e d d e a dly 4 forc e wa s require d to establish that "a rea sonable pe rson i n t h e ac tor' s situation would not have retre ated." Act of May 16, 1995, 74th L eg ., R.S., ch. 235, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. L aws 2141, 2141–42 (a me nd e d 2 00 7) (c ur

re nt v e rs ion

a t T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9.32 (Ve rnon S upp. 2008)). In 2007, the Te xas L e g isl a tur e a me nd e d Sec tio n 9.3 2 to re mov e the re qu ir e me nt t hat " a re a so na ble pe rs on

in th e act or's s it uat io n wo ul d n ot hav e ret reat ed. " See Act of Ma y 16, 1995, 74th L eg ., R.S., ch. 235, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. L aws 2141, 2141–42, amende d by Act of Marc h 20, 2007, 80th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1 , § 3 , 2 0 0 7 T e x . G e n . L aw s 1 , 1

– 2
. S i n c e t h i s o f f e n s e w a s c o m m i t t e d i n 2 0 0 6 , w e w il l a n a ly ze Be ard' s contention under the prior ve rsion of Section 9.32. See Act of Ma rch 20, 2007, 80th L eg ., R.S. , c h. 1, § 3 , 2 00 7 T e x. Ge n. L aws 1, 1– 2 ( of fe ns e com mi tt ed b e fo re Ac t' s e ff e c tiv e date g overne d by

sections in eff

ect whe n offe nse committed).

4 Be ard w ould have be en justified in using deadly forc e in self- defe nse if: (1) unde r Section 9.31, self-de fense is justified, (2) a rea sonable person in Be ard' s situation would not have retre ated, 3 4

and (3 ) B e ard re a so na bly be lie ve d th e us e of

de a dly fo rc e wa s im me diate ly ne c e ssa ry to p ro te c t hi m ag ainst Renaldo' s use or attempted use of unlaw ful dea dly forc e. See T EX . P EN A L C O DE ANN . § 9.32(a)

. Be ard be ars the bur den of pr oducing some evidenc e that would suppo rt t h e def ense. See Zul ian i v . S

tat e , 9 7 S
. W
. 3 d

5 8 9 , 5 9 4 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 00 3) ; Sa xto n v. Stat e , 804 S.W .2d 910, 91 3– 14 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Tid mo re v . S tat e , 976 S.W .2d 724, 729 (Tex. App.—Ty ler 1998, pet. re f' d). I n order to be entitled to an instruction on the use of de adly forc e in self- defe nse, then, Be ard w as re quired to pr oduce some evidenc e on eac h of the above thr ee e lements of Section 9.32 of the Texas Pena l Code

. See W ern er v. S

tat e , 711 S.W .2d 639, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986);5

Ho lm es v . S

tat e , 830 S.W .2d 263, 26 5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no pet.). That said, we turn our attention to Section 9.32' s element of retre at, noting that Be ard ha d to produce some evidenc e to show that a re asonable person in his position would not ha ve re treated. See Ha lbe rt v . S tat e , 881 S.W .2d 121, 125 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1994, pet. re f' d). An ac cused is entitled to an instruction on any defe nsi v e i ssue ra ised by the evidenc e, whether that evidenc e is wea

k or strong , unimpeache d or contra dicted, and r eg ardle ss of what the trial court may

think about the cre dibilit y of the e vidence

. Gran ge r v . S tat e , 3 S. W. 3 d

3 6 , 3 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1999). An instruction on self-de fense is not required, how ever , if the evide nce, vie wed in a light f

avora ble to the def

endant, doe s no t ra i s e t h e issue of se lf-def ense. Mu niz

v . S tat e , 851 S.W. 2d 23 8, 25 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). I n th e c on te xt of se lf -d e fe ns e by

de a dly fo rc e , s ome evidenc e of the inability to r etre at is a ll that is ne cessa ry . Gu ilb e au v . S

tate , 193 S.W .3d 156, 161 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Dis t.] 200 6, pe t. r e f' d) ; Ha lbe rt , 881 S.W .2d at 125. The e vidence does not raise se lf-def

ense w hen it depic t s circumstances in which a rea sonable pe rson would have

r e tr e a te d an d e s ta b li s h e s th a t t

h e d e f e n d an t d id

n o t att e mp t t o retre at. See Ri dd le v . S tat e , 888 S.W. 2d 1, 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ); Cob le v . S tat e , 871 S.W .2d 192, 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 77 5 S.W. 2d 64 5, 64 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 ); Ce as ar v . S tat e , 939 S.W .2d 778, 781 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1997, pet. re f' d). Wit h those g uideposts in mind, we examine the evidence

.6

Hendr ix testified that she wa s inside her house with her g randson Oc tober 25, 2006. F rom her kitche n window, she saw B ear d drive fa st down County Road 3104. Approximately three minutes later, Hen d ri x was looki ng out the front door of her house when B ear d came back up the road, still driving f

ast. Be ard then hit his brake s, rolled down his window, and be g an shooting in the d i re ct i o no f h er h o u s e. S h e re ca l l ed h i m s h o o t i n g fi v e o r s i x s h o t s . He r gr an d s o nwa s ab o u tan ar m 's leng th behind her at the time play ing vide o g ames. One bullet came throug h the kitchen window at which He ndrix had bee n standing minutes earlier . Another bullet broke t h ro u gh her be droom window and hit the hea dboard of her bed. She knew Bea

rd and recognized him as the driver of the
car and the shooter

. At the tim e of

the sh oo ting , Re na ldo and He nd ri x' s d a ug hte r, Sha

na ldo F ra zie r, ha d ju st
arr ived at the house and we re visiting in the f ront y ard. D escr ibing the shooting , Hendr ix testified that Be ard c ame to a complete stop be fore firing the g un, drove awa y slowly , and then turned r ight onto another stre et. She also testified that Rena ldo was not arme d and had not f ired at Be ard e ither time Be ard ha d driven by the house. Sha na ldo te sti fi e d s imi larl y

that sh e and he r br oth e r ha d jus t arr ive d a t the ir mot he r' s h ou se and we re ta lking by t wo v eh i cl es p arke d just in front of the re sidence . Shanaldo also knewand clea rly rec og nized B ear d as the shooter. Acc ording to Shana ldo, B ear d lowere d his window as he slowed to a slow roll and star ted firing

.7

Kay neisha King , Be ard' s g irlfriend a nd mother of two of his c hildren, testified at trial. King
wa s d ri vin g around wi th Beard O c tob e r 2 5, 20 06 , w he n s he and B e ard fi rs t w e nt b y

the He nd ri x house on the wa

y to her mother' s house wher e she a nd Be ard a lso lived. King te stified that, when sh e and B e ard fi rs t dr ov e by

the He nd ri x hou se , Re na ldo and

Sha na ldo we re in f

ro nt o f t he ho us e and Rena ldo beg an runningtoward the ir ca r and f ired two or thr ee shots at them. I mportantly , King
never saw Rena ldo shooting during the first trip past the He ndrix house; she only hear d the sec ond and third shots. Although the State questioned King abou t h o w she would other wise know a

bout a first shot if she did not hea r or se e it, she neve r cla

rified how she knew of

the first shot. When asked why

she or B ear d did not report the incident, King insists that she we nt to the sheriff ' s office but that no one at the of fice took a re port bec ause she g ot sic k , being preg nant and upset by the incident. Althoug h she conc eded that there w as a telephone at her mother ' s residenc e and althoug h she may

have ha d a cell phone, no one attempted to phone in a repor t that Renaldo had shot at them during their first trip by the Hendrix house. L ater in her te stimony , King does cla im that she ca lled about Renaldo shooting at them and that police failed to show up. The State pointed out to her that the c all logs f

rom the M orris C ounty dispatch do not show such a call from King or B ear d, bu t di d s ho w a

c a ll f ro m th e He nd

ri x hou se pr e su ma

bly re po rt ingthat B e ard

sh ot at th e He nd

ri x house. King also admitted that she and B ear d had bee n looking f or Renaldo that da

y . Acc ording to King, she and B ear d arr ived at the King residenc e after having f irst driven by the Hendr ix house. While at the King residenc e, B ear d retrie ved a gun from somewhe re in or ne ar8

the Ki ng re sid e nc e . K ingdid

no t kn owwh e re the g un

c a me fr om. B e ard

le ft the ho us e by

him se lf to drive bac k by

the Hendr ix home. Althoug h she wa s standing outside a fter be ing dr opped off at her mother' s residenc e, which is approxim ately 200 y ards a

way from the He ndrix house, she testified that she did not hear

any of the shots fire d afte r B ear d left to go b ack by the Hendr ix house. B e ard te sti fi e d th a t K ingwa s d ri vin g wh e n Re na ldo be g an fir inga t th e m w he n th e y fi rs t drove b y t h e Hendrix house. The two ha d seen both Rena ldo and Shanaldo ea rlier that da

y . He
e xpla ine d th a t he re tr ieved his g un fr om t he wo od s b e hin d K ing ' s mo the r' s h ou se and de c ide d to leave and g o "c hill" with his family , sug g esting that h e wa n ted to leave the ar ea w ithout further incident. B ear d also testified that, af ter he had re trieved his g un, various people at the King residenc e tried to cal m him down and urg ed him not to do "nothing stupid." Saying that he was fea rful of stay

ing at the King residenc e at that time, he resolved t o drive to the ot her location and be wi th s ome re la tiv e s. To g e t to his fa mil y ' s ho us e , tho ug h, he ha d to g o ba c k by the He nd ri x hou se wher e Rena ldo was. B ear d testified that, as he drove by slowly , he wa s "minding [hi s] own bu sin e ss" and

" dr ivi ngslo w ' c a

us e [he ] ai n' t pa

y ingno a tte nti on ." He wa s play ing lou d musi c on his sound sy stem and had all his car windows rolled down. He noted se vera l times that he had his g un in the passeng er se at but only "f or [his] safe ty ." A s he dr o v e b ack by the Hendr ix house, B ear d explain ed , Renaldo ag ain fire d a g un in his direction, prompting B ear d to stop his car and shoot back, a s he explains, "for [hi s] s afe ty ." When a sked why he denie d having fired a ny shots whenOther e vidence sug g ested the distanc e from road to residenc e wa s thirty to forty y ards, but 5 that evidenc e wa s portray ed as an estim ate, while the di stance of eig hty -two y ards ha d been pa ced off by an off icer

. Even if a shot or

two could be se en as a

rea sonable de fensive me asure as B ear d was driving 6 off, that is, re treating, spra y ing the residenc e with four t o s ev en s h o ts could not be seen a s such,

9 int e rv ie we d b y

po lic e , h e e xpla ine d th a t he wa nte d to se e the e vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m, t hat he wa s st ill

m a d , an d t h a tt h e o f

f i c e r s w e r e n o tl i s t e n i n g t o h i s s i d e o f t h e s t o r y. I n the instant case , we note that, although B ear d clai m s R en al d o s hot at him only minutes
e arl ie r, B e ard

re tr ie ve d h is o wn

g un and , b y his ow n a c c ount, slowly dro ve bac k b y the He nd ri x house playing loud music with all of his ca r windows down. He explained that Renaldo aga in shot at him. The evide nce indicates that Renaldo stood nea r the fr ont of t h e house, which sat as much

a s e ig hty -t

wo y ard s fr om t

he ro a d, de mon str a tin g that B e ard c ou ld h a ve a tte m

p t e d " r e t r e a t "

— s i m p ly 5 driven a way —rathe r than stopping and shooting

. I ndeed, a rea sonable person not spoiling for a fig ht
wo uld have us e d h is o r h e r s up e ri or mob ili ty to dr ive awa

y fr om d ang e r, in t

he se c on d in sta

nc e in which B ear d claims R en aldo s hot at him. The evidenc e esta blishes, though, that B ear d instead broug ht his car to " a complete stop," as Be ard testified, and then shot sever al rounds in the dire ction of the Hendr ix house in the second instance. Indeed, Be ard had driven awa y in the fi rs t i n s t ance , when he had no g un. So, assuming, arguendo , th a t Re naldo had sho t a t B e ard wh e n h e dr ov e by , a

re a so na ble p er s o ni n Be ar d 's s i tu at i o n wo u l d h av e re t re at ed ra t h er t h an co m i n g t o a co mp l et e s t o p an d fi ri n g a g un four to seven tim es. The recor d here contains no evidence sug g esting that a re asonable person 6e sp e c ia lly

c on sid e ri ngthe re la tiv e mob ili ty of B e ard and Re na ldo and

the dis tanc e be tw e e n th e m. 10 in B e ard ' s p os iti on

wo uld no t ha ve re tr e a te d. No e vid e nc e , fo r e xamp le , su g g e sts that B e ard wa s in any way trappe d into a confr ontation or that, rathe r than re treating, he was e ssentially forc ed to shoot fo ur or mor e sh ots to p ro te c t hi mse lf . T hat sa id, the e vid e nc e fa ils to r a ise the iss ue of se lf -d e fe ns e by deadly forc e. ( 2) No Harm Resulted from any Error Even if the e vidence had bee n sufficie nt to raise the issue of self-de fense using deadly forc e, and the tria l court, thus, err ed in not instructing the jury on self-de fense , we c onclude that a ny such
e rr or wo uld have be e n h arm le ss. Where a trial court' s char g e to the jury contains er

ror, we should analy

ze the err or for

harm under the standard of Article 36.19 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a

rt . 3 6. 19 (V e rn on 20 06 ). We a re no t to re ve rs e a

c on vic tio n o r s e nte nc e on the ba sis of jur y c ha rg e e rr or " un le ss t he e rr or a pp e ari ngfr om t

he re c or d w a s c a lc ulate d to inj ur e the ri g hts of t he d efen dan t, or u nl ess it app ears th at t he d efen dan t h as n ot hada fai r and im part ial tr ial ." Id. Th is l angua g e c re a te d two sep arate ha rm -a na ly sis sta

nd ard s: t he fi rs t to be us e d w he n a tim e ly objection is made to the c harg e; the sec ond to be used whe n no such obj ection appe ars in the r ecor d. Al ma nz a v . S

tat e , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on re h' g ). The f irst standard dictates that re versa l should occur if the defendant made a timely objection and if the re is some ha rm11

to the defe ndant from the e rror . Id

. Pr op e rl y pr e se rv e d jur y -c ha rg e e rr or re qu ir e s r e ve rs a l un le ss i t is harmless. He re , B e ard tim e ly so ug ht a se lf -d e fe ns e ins tr

uc tio n; t hu s, if fa ilure to g ive the se lf

-d e fe ns e instruction was er

ror, the e rror

would have been rever sible if Be ard c ould show any deg ree of har

m from not re ceivingthe instruction. We assess the deg ree of har m "in lig ht of the entire jury char g e, the state of the evidenc e, including t he conte sted issues and we ight of probative e vidence , the

argume nt o f c ouns e l and any oth e r r e le va

nt i nf or ma tio n r e ve a le d b y

the re c or d o f t he tria l a s a who le. " Id .; se e Ov all e v . S tat e , 13 S.W .3d 774, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Be ard ha s the burden to persuade us that he suffe red some a ctual har m a s a conseque nce of a cha rg e er ror; other wise we would aff irm. See A bdnor , 871 S.W .2d at 732. " [T] he pre sence of any harm, re g ardle ss of deg ree , which re sults from preser ved cha rg ing e rror , is sufficient to re quire a reve rsal of the conviction. Ca ses in vo lv in g pres erve d ch argin g error wi ll be affi rm ed on ly if no harm has occu rred ." Arline v. Sta te , 7 21 S.W. 2d

34 8, 35 1 ( Te x. Crim

. App
. 19 86 ) ( no ha rm wh e re no de fi nit ion

of re a so na ble be lie f) ; se e als o Ca the

yv . S tat e , 992 S.W .2d 460, 466 (Tex. Cr i m . App. 1999) (f ailure to instruct jury on acc ompl i ce -w itness rule har mless error

wher e suff

icient evidenc e to convict de fenda nt as principle). On the oth e r h and , the a

pp e lla nt m us t de mon str a te a c tua l, a s o pp os e d to po ssi ble , h a rm . Me din a v . S

tat e , 7 S.W. 3d

63 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99). Sig nif ic ant e vid e nc e mil itatin g a g a ins t a defe nse-r equeste d instruction or finding can r ender an er ror ha rmless. Id . at 642–43.12

We find signific ant evidenc e her e militating ag ainst a self- defe nse instructi on. Be ard w as in a motor vehicle which wa s moving under power on a public street. Just m inutes befor e, he ha d be e n dr i v i n g d o w n t h e s a m e r o a d an d w a s s h o t a t
. I m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h a t , h e dr o v e aw ay

on ly to retrie ve his g un, put it on the seat beside him, and r eturn to the sce ne of the i n i tial shooting. As might be e x pecte d, Renaldo, on foot, hea rd and saw Be ard' s vehicle once ag ain driving by and fire d

a t hi m f ro m hi s p os iti on

in t he y ard , some e ig hty -t

wo y ard s aw ay fr om B e ard ' s veh ic le . N on e wo uld
c on c lud e that B e ard

wa s in any wa y surp ri se d to be sh ot a

t th is t ime or

tha t he wa s n ot r e a dy

and a ble to speed his ca

r aw ay to avoid troubl e s h o u l d h e h ave wanted to do so rather than take the opportunity

to shoot mul tiple shots in the direc tion of Renaldo and the r esidenc e. No r easona ble jury would have f

ound that Be ard acte d in se lf-def ense. Even if there wer e err or in failing to submit the iss ue of se lf -d e fe ns e , th e re wa s n o h arm . We o ve rr ule B e ard ' s so le po int

of e rr or and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Fe bruar y 19, 2008 Date D ecide d: September 5, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh