### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 708 -CR

Ja so n Jo hnso n , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 4 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. C-1- CR-08 -21 0292 , HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM E. BENDER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant J ason J o h n s o n g uilty of assa ult, with a special findingof family violence. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2008); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.013 (West 2006). The trial court assessed punishment at 180 day s in jail. I n a sing le point of er ror, a ppellant contends the trial court e rre d by ref using to i n s t ru ct the jury on the law of
se lf -d e fe ns e and

de fe ns e of

a thi rd pe rs on . We a ff

ir m. Th e c omp la ini ng wi tne ss wa s a pp e lla nt’ s wi fe , Court

ne y John so n. Ap pe lla

nt, Courtney , the couple’s fo u r- y ea r- o l d d au gh t er Al i s s a, an d

ap p el l an t ’s m o t h er

J ohnnie J ohnson share d
a re sidence

. Courtney testified t hat on the ni g ht in question, she re turned home f rom work just afte r 10:00 p.m. to find Aliss a wa s still awake. Alissa asked Courtne y if she could slee p with her g randmother . Courtney

testified, “I

responde d a littl e harshly to he r, raised my voice, told he r no she couldn’t sleep in ther e and I tried to explain to her why , but in a not so nice tone.” B oth appellant2

an d Jo h n n ie to ld Co u rtn e y th a t s h e s h o u ld n o t s p e a k to th e c h il d th a t w ay , an d Courtney and appellant be g an to ar g ue. Courtney testified, “I

was ve ry ang ry . I wa s u s i n g cuss words. The situation that wa s at hand ha d made me pr etty ang ry and so I was re sponding to that situation.” Courtney said that when Johnnie tried to intervene , “I once ag ain not so nicely , and not using proper words, I went after her and told her it wasn’t any of her business that it was betwee n me and Jason.” Courtney testified that she lef

t the living room whe re the argument h ad begun and went to the bedr oom she share d with appellant. Appe llant followed her to the bedroom a

nd “the fig ht esca lated.” Courtne y said that appe llant slapped her fac e, and “I fell backw ards onto the be d, and then he g ot on top of me and ha d his ha n d s ar o u n d m y t hroat.” Appellant wa s “ver y ang ry ,”

“ d e f i n i t e l y n o th i m s e l f

, ” an d h e t o l d C o u rt n e y t h a t“ h e o u g h tt o f

— i n g k i l l m e b i t c h

. ” E v e n tu a l l y, appellant stopped c hoking Courtne y , picked he r up, opene d the nea rby door to the g ara g e, and thr ew her onto the g ara g e floor. Courtne y ran to a neig hbor’s house a

nd called the police. J ohnnie J ohnson testified that during the ar g ument with app el l ant, C ourtney was

“ s c r e a m i n g an d

h o l l e r i n g ” an d

“ e v e r y o t h e r w o r d w a s p r o f an i t y. ” J o h n n i e t r i e d

t o c a l m C o u rt n e y, bu t “ the mor e Ita lke d w ithhe r o r t ri e d to the wo rs e sh e g ot, sh e jus t wa s unc on tr oll a ble .” John nie said that Courtney

“wa s in my

fac e and cussing me and telling me it wasn’t my business and to shut up.” Johnni e testified that a s the argument continued, Courtney “would adva

nce on [appe llant] , y ou kn ow , a nd he wo uld pu shhe r b a c k. ” John nie te sti fi e d tha t Cour tne y “ sta rt e d f la ili nga t” a

pp e lla nt, and appe llant took her to the bedr oom. Johnnie followed appellant and Courtney into the bedroom and ag ain tried to interve ne to stop the ar gu m en t . Courtney continued to cur se Johnni e, and

a pp e lla nt “ pu t he r ov e r on the be d and he str a dd le d he r and he tol d he r, ‘Y ou do no t tal k t o my3

mother like that, I d o n ’t t al k t o my mother like that and this is her house .’” Johnnie testified that app e ll an t u s e d o n e h an d to h o ld Co u rtn e y ’ s n e c k o r s h o u ld e r , b u t s h e d e n ie d th a t a ppellant was trying to stra

ng le Courtney . J ohnnie testified that whe n appellant and Courtney went to the g ara g e, “[T] hey wer e scr eamingand holleringand she w as trying to sc rat ch him and claw at him . . . .” Ap pe lla nt “ wa s p us hin g he r aw ay . Hi s ar ms ar e lon g e r t

ha n h e rs be c a

us e sh e ’s lit tle , a

nd he c ou ld just hold her back kind of like that.” At the cha rg e conf ere nce, de fense counsel a sked for instructions on self-def

ense a nd defe nse of a

third person. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 9.31 (West Supp. 2008); § 9.33 (West 2003). The court denied the reque st f or a defe nse of a third person instruction, but g rante d, over the State’s pe rs ist e nt o bje c tio ns , th e re qu e st f or a se lf -d e fe ns e ins tr

uc tio n. Th e c ourt th en to ok a re c e ss, instructing the parties, “Go fix the charg e.” When proce eding s on the record r esumed, ther e wa s no self-de fense instruction in the char g e. De fense counsel, noting that the char g e contained a specia l issue asking the jury

to decide if

the offense invol ved family violence, a sked the c ourt to add to the char g e the applicable statutory definition of “f amily violence.” See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.004 (West 2008). Counsel continued:
I ’m g oing to g o ahea d and re ad it if Imay , Your Honor
. THE COURT: Yes, sir. [C ounsel]: “An act by

a member

of a f amily or househol d against another me mbe r of the fa

mil y or ho us e ho ld t

hat is int e nd e d to re su lt i n p hy sic a l ha rm , b od ily injury , assault, or sexual assault, or that is a threat that rea sonably place s the member in fea r of imminent phy sical har m, bodily injury , assault, or sexual assault, but does not include def

ensive mea sures to protec t oneself.” In this instance we do not be lie v e tha t we ’r e re ac hin g th e iss ue of s e lf- de fe ns e an d it ’s no t re qu este d in th is charge , b ut w e are ta lki ng a bo ut d e fe ns ive me a sure s, i.e . b a c kin g up , tr y ingto a vo id4

the confrontation and so forth, and there ’s evidence of that from the police and fr om J ohnnie J ohnson. (Emphasis adde d.) The State obje cted that “def ensive mea sures to protec t oneself” wer e equiva lent to self-de fense , and the tria l court denie d the re quest. The c ourt asked i f there wer e any further objections to the cha

rg e, and both pa

rties answe red in the ne g ative. Ap pe lla nt’ s p oin t of

e rr or is n ot t hat the tr ia l cou

rt e rr e d by re fu sin g to de fi ne “ fa mil y violence,” but that the court e rre d by ref using t o i n s t ru ct the jury on self-de fense . The re cord ref lects, howe ver, that the trial court g rante d appellant’ s reque st for a se lf-def ense instruc tion. For wh at ev er re as o n , ap p el l an t ab an d o n ed t h e se l f- d ef en s e is s u e du ri n g t h e tr i al re ce s s . Af t er t h e c h ar ge
wa s p re pa

re d, c ouns e l to ld t

he c ourt that a se lf -d e fe ns e ins tr

uc tio n w a s “ no t r e qu e ste d in thi s char g e.” A

ppellant ca

nnot now complain that he wa s denied a self-de fense instruction. Nor is er ror shown w i t h respe ct to the trial cour t’s ref usal to instruct the jury

on de fe ns e of

a thi rd pe rs on . U nd e r p e na l c od e se c tio n 9 .3 3, a perso n is ju st ifie d in

us ingfo rc e to pr ote c t a thi rd pe rs on in a ny sit uatio n in wh ic h th e thi rd

pe rs on wo uld be jus tif

ie d in us ingfo rc e to protec t herself

. Hu gh es v . S tat e , 719 S.W .2d 5 6 0 , 5 6 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The use of forc e ag ainst another is not justified in response t o verba l provoca tion alone. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9 .3 1( b) (1 ). Al tho ug h th e re is e vidence that Cou rt ne y sp ok e ha rs hly to A lis sa and wa s v e rb a lly abusive towa

rd Johnni e, appe llant cites no evidenc e that Courtney used or attempted to use phy sical forc e ag ainst either of them. Be cause there is no evidenc e that would support a finding that either Alissa or J ohnnie was justified in using force ag ainst Courtney in self-de fense , the trial cour t did not
err by ref using a ppellant’s re quested instruction on def ense of a third per son.5 The point of er

ror is over

ruled, a nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Oc tober 14, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh