No. PD-0257-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

GREGORY SHAWN HENLEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from Tarrant County

* * * * *

STATE’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS

* * * * *

LISA C. McMINN State Prosecuting Attorney
Bar I.D. No.13803300

JOHN R. MESSINGER Assistant State Prosecuting Attorney
Bar I.D. No. 24053705

P.O. Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711 information@spa.texas.gov 512/463-1660 (Telephone) 512/463-5724 (Fax) PD-0257-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 7/17/2015 4:53:32 PM Accepted 7/17/2015 4:59:19 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKNAMES OF ALL PARTI ES TO THE T RIAL CO URT’S J UDGMENT

*Th e pa rti es to th e tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t are th e St at e of Tex as a n d a p p el la nt
, Greg or y Sh awn Henl ey

.

*Th e cas e was tri ed be fo re t he Hon or ab le Jamie Cu m m in gs , Pres id in g J ud ge of
Co un ty Crim in al Co ur t No . 5 o f Tarra nt Co un ty, Tex as

.

*C ou ns e l fo r App el la nt at tri al was Co dy Lee Co fer an d Lau ren R. Cri se ra, 11 1 N.
Hou st on , For t Wort h, Tex as 76 10 2.

*C ou ns el fo r App el la nt on ap pe al is W il li am S. Harri s , 3 0 7 We st Sev en th St reet
, Su it e 1 90 5, Fo rt Wort h, Tex as 76 10 2.

*C ou ns el fo r th e St at e at tri al was Kris B. Kris hn a, fo rm er Ass is ta nt Cri m in al Dis tri ct Att or n e y, an d Ch ris to ph er B. McGre go r, Ass is ta nt Cri m in al Dis tri ct Att or ne y , 40 1
W . Bel kn ap St., Fo rt Wort h, Tex as 76 19 6.

*C ou ns el fo r th e St at e on ap pe al was Deb ra W in ds or , Ass is ta nt Cr i mi n al Dis tri ct Att or ne y , 40 1 W. Belk na p S t., Fo rt Wort h, Tex as 76 19 6.

*C ou ns el fo r th e St at e be f o r e th is Co ur t is Jo hn R. Mes si ng er, Ass is ta nt St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y , P.O. Box 13 04 6, Au st in , Texa s 7 87 11

.

iTABLE OF CONTENT S

INDEX OF AUT HORITIES..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

STATEMENT OF TH E CASE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ISSUE PRESENTED.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Is a pe rs on jus tif

ie d in usi ng for ce a ga in st an ot her t o p rev ent a n a bs ent thi rd pa rty fro m po ss ib ly usi ng unl aw ful for ce i n the f utur e?

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SUMM ARY OF THE ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

I. La w

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Ent it le men t t o d ef

en se s g en er al ly

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Defe ns e o f a th ir d p er

so n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

“ The ot he r”.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

“ Im m ed ia te ly neces sa ry ”.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

“ Unl awfu l fo rce”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

II

. Appl ic at io n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Dou gl as an d h is ex-s te

ps on wer e n ot

th er e

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Bra nd y d id no t u se an

y fo rc e

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Gen er al fea r o f f ut ur e h ar m is no t en ou gh

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 App el la nt cre at ed hi s o wn ju st if

ic at io n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Th e co nc ur ri ng

op in io n o ff er s n o s up po rt

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Nec es si ty ca se s a re il lu st ra ti ve

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Dewa lt v. St at e

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Sc hi er v. St at e

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

II I. Con cl us io n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

iiPRAYER FOR R ELIEF.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CERTIFI CATE OF COMPLIANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

iiiINDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es Bla ck v. S ta te , 14 5 S .W . 94 4 (1 91 2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Bog et v. St at e , 74 S.W .3d 23 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Boy ki n v . St at e , 81 8 S .W .2d 78 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 91 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Bra ze lt on v. St at e , 94 7 S .W .2d 64 4 (Te x. Ap p.– Fo rt Wort h 1 99 7, n o p et .) .

. . . . 19

Ca dl e Co . v. Lob in gi er , 50 S.W .3d 66 2 (Te x. Ap p.– Fo rt Wort h 2 00 1)

. . . . . . . . . 20

Ca nn an v. Gree n Oa ks Apt s., Lt d. , 75 8 S .W .2d 75 3 (Te x. 1 98 8)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Cl in to n v . St at e , 35 4 S .W .3d 79 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 11 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Dewa lt v. St at e , 30 7 S .W .3d 43 7 (Te x. Ap p.– Aus ti n 2 01 0, p et . ref’d).

. . 18 , 26 -2 8

Dick ey v. S ta te , 22 S.W .3d 49 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Dob bs v. St at e , 43 4 S .W .3d 16 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 14 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Ex pa rt e Dol en z , 89 3 S .W .2d 67 7 (Te x. Ap p.– Dall as 19 95 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . 20

Dys on v. St at e , 67 2 S .W .2d 46 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Eas le y v. S ta te , 42 4 S .W .3d 53 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Ferr el v. St at e , 55 S.W .3d 58 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Hamel v. St at e , 91 6 S .W .2d 49 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 96 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Har bi so n v . McMur ra

y , 15 8 S .W .2d 28 4 (Te x. 1 94 2) (op . on reh ’g).

. . . . . . . . . 21

Hen le y v. S ta te , 45 4 S .W .3d 10 6 (Te x. Ap p.– Fo rt Wort h 2 01 4)

. . . . . 22 , 24 -2 5, 3 0

Hug he s v. S ta te , 71 9 S .W .2d 56 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ) (en ba nc ).

. . . . . . . . . 14

ivMac ia s v. S ta te , 13 -1 3- 00 31 9- CR, 2 01 5 Tex . App . LEXIS 23 19

(Tex . App .–C or

pu s C hr is ti Mar. 1 2, 2 01 5) (m ot . for r’hng fil ed ).

. . . . . . . 16

Mer ri tt v. St at e , 05 -1 0- 01 00 8- CR, 2 01 2 Tex . App . LEXIS 23 82 (Tex

. App .–Dal la s M ar. 2 7, 2 01 2, p et . ref’d) (n ot de si gn at ed for pu bl ic at io n)

. . 20

Mur kl ed ov e v. S ta te , 43 7 S .W .3d 17 (Tex . App .–F or t Wort h 2 01 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . 18

Ex pa rt e Rho de s , 97 4 S .W .2d 73 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 98 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Sc hi er v. St at e , 60 S.W .3d 34 0 (Te x. Ap p.– Hou st on [14 Dis t.] 20 01

, th

pe t. re f’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 , 28 -2 9

Sh aw v. St at e , 24 3 S .W .3d 64 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 -1 4, 3 0

Ex pa rt e Ta

yl or , 28 S.W . 95 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 18 94 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

W al te rs v. St at e , 24 7 S .W .3d 20 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Sta tute s a nd Rul es T E X

. F A M

. C O D E § 1 01 .03 2( a).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 1 .07 (a)( 48 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 2 .03 (c).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9 .22

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 -1 8

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9 .31 (a).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 , 16

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9 .31 (b )(4 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9 .32 (b )(1 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9 .33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

T E X

. R. E V ID . 40 4( a)(3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

vOthe r

B LA C K ’ S L A W D IC T IO N A R Y (Sp eci al Delu xe 5 ed . 19 79 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 -2 1 th

R A N D O M H O U S E D IC T IO N A R Y O F T H E E N G LIS H L A N G U A G E (Un ab rid ge d e d. 1 97 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

viNo. PD-0 25 7- 15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS

OF THE STAT E OF TEXA S

GREGORY SHAW

N HENLE Y, App el la nt

v.

THE STAT E OF TEXA S, App el le e

* * * * *

STATE ’S BRI EF ON THE MERIT S

* * * * *

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS:

Co m es no w th e St at e of Tex as , by an d th ro ug h it s St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y ,

an d re sp ect fu ll y

pre se nt s t o t hi s C ou rt i ts bri ef o n t he m eri ts

.

STATE MENT OF TH E CASE

App el la nt was co nv ic te d of as sa ul t (fam ily vio lenc e) an d se nt en ced to 20 0 da y s

in co un ty jail

. The co ur t of ap pe al s rev ers ed

, ho ld in g th at th e ex cl us io n of 1

ap pe ll an t’s te st im on y an d de ni al of rel at e d cro ss -ex am in at io n reg ard in g why he

as sa ul te d hi s ex -wif

e pr ev en te d hi m fro m pr es en ti ng hi s de fen se —d efen se of a th ird

pe rs on

.

1 CR 30. 1

1STATE MENT REG ARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral arg um en t was req ue st ed bu t n ot gra nt ed

.

IS SUE PRESENT ED

Is a pers on jus tif

ie d in us in g fo rce ag ai ns t an ot her to prev ent an ab se nt thi rd pa rty fro m po ss ib ly usi ng unl aw ful for ce i n the f utur e?

STATE MENT OF FACTS

The vi ct im

, Bran dy Gil li ng ha m (Bra nd y ), is ap pe ll an t ’s ex -wif e. The ir two 2

so ns li ve d wit h ap pe ll an t whi le th ei r pe rm an en t cu st od y ca s e was pe nd in g. On 3

Mar ch 3, 20 12 , B ran dy wen t to hi s ho us e to pi ck up th ei r ch il dr en for he r week en d

vi si ta ti on

. Her vi si ta ti on s were or de red by th e SAPCR co ur t to be su pe rv is ed by he r

4

m ot he r or fat he r. Her m ot he r wen t wi th he r, as req ui red

.

5 6

App el la nt was wait in g fo r th em an d ap pr oa ch ed as th e y pu ll ed up cu rb si de

. 7

5 RR 62. 2

5 RR 80. 3

5 RR 63. 4

5 RR 80, 83-84. “SAPCR” stands for “Suit Af fec ting the Par ent-Child Relationship.” See 5

T E X

. F A M

. C O D E § 101.032(a) (“‘ Suit aff ecting the par ent-c hild relationship’ means a suit filed as provided by this title in whi ch the appointment of a manag ing conser vator or a possessory

conser vator, acc ess to o r support of a child, or establishment or termination of the pare nt-child
rela tionship i s reque sted.”).

5 RR 45, 63. 6

5 RR 46. 7

2He sa id he wan te d to ta lk

. N e i t h e r B r a n d y no r he r m ot he r wan te d to “ be cau se he 8

te nd s t o g et ira te .” Bran dy’ s m om di d no t kn ow ex act ly wha t he wan te d to ta lk 9

ab ou t, bu t he was an gr y

. Bran dy di d no t reca ll wha t he was tryin g to ta lk ab ou t, bu t 1 0

he sa id he wou ld no t gi ve he r th e ki ds “ be cau se he wan te d hi s qu es ti on s an swe red .” 1 1

Afte r a p p e l l a n t twi ce refu se d to ge t th e ch il dr en , Bran dy cal le d 91 1. He 1 2

be cam e m or e an d m or e ag i ta te d bu t wen t to ge t th e ch il dr en

. Bran dy, st il l on th e 1 3

ph o n e , st oo d ou ts id e th e ve hi cl e as ap pe ll an t pl aced th e bo y s in si de

. Sh e st il l 1 4

wan te d to m ak e a co m

pl ai nt an d was in st ru ct ed to st ay th ere un ti l an of fic er arri ve d. 1 5

Bran dy en de d he r cal l to 91 1 aft er sh e to ld th e op erat or t h at ap pe ll an t pl aced th e

ch il dr en in si de

, bu t ap pe ll an t st il l wan te d to ta lk to ei th er he r or he r m ot he r. By th at 1 6

5 RR 63, 81. 8

5 RR 46, 63. 9

5 RR 60. 1 0

5 RR 46, 81, 84. 1 1

5 RR 63-64. 1 2

5 RR 47, 81. 1 3

5 RR 47, 64, 82. 1 4

5 RR 65. 1 5

5 RR 47. 1 6

3po in t, Br an dy was si tt in g i ns id e th e car wit h th e win do w ro ll ed up

. App el la nt go t 1 7

up se t an d “ sn ap pe d o ff” t he ha nd le when he tri ed to op en Bran dy’ s d oo r. 1 8

W he n Bran dy op en ed th e do or to ret rie ve th e ha nd le

, ap pe ll an t pu ll ed he r ou t

by he r po nytai l. Bran dy ha d no t hi t ap pe ll an t or mad e an y li ke m ot io ns

. He 1 9 2 0

“ pr oc eed ed to ge t on to p of he r, ho ld in g he r do wn wit h hi s kn ees pr ob ab ly ag ai ns t he r

sh ou ld ers so sh e co ul dn ’t wig gl e ou t an d jus t st art ed be at in g he r face .” The br ui si ng 2 1

was se ve re. He al so gr ab be d b o t h s i d e s o f he r he ad an d ba ng ed it ag ai ns t th e

2 2

co nc ret e, “ li ke he r he ad was b ou nc in g o n t he gra ss an d t he co nc ret e si de walk .” 2 3

Afte r ap pe ll an t ha d ba ck ed of f, he go t o n h is ph on e wit h s om eo ne , go t i n h is

ve hi cl e, an d l eft be fo re t he po li ce s ho wed up

. 2 4

Afte r Bran dy te st i f

i ed an d ou ts id e th e jury’ s pr es en ce, sh e was as ke d to

5 RR 65, 83. 1 7

5 RR 48, 65, 83. 1 8

5 RR 48, 67. 1 9

5 RR 52. 2 0

5 RR 48, 67. 2 1

See State’s Exhi bits 7-11 (day of the a ttack); 13 & 14 (the next morning ); 12 & 15 ( Marc h 2 2 5, two day s after

the assault); 16 & 17 (Mar ch 11).

5 RR 52-53, 68. 2 3

5 RR 51, 70. 2 4

4el ab or at e on th e reas on he r vi si ta ti on s ha d to be su pe rv is ed

. Sh e ex pl ai ne d th at on e 2 5

of h e r s o n s ha d m ad e an al le ga ti on of ph y si cal ab us e ag ai ns t Dou gl as Gil li ng ha m

(Do ug la s) he r th en -fi an cé. One of th e bo y s accu se d hi m of st ran gl in g hi m in Aug us t 2 6

of 20 11

. App el la nt rep o r t e d th e al le ga ti on to Ch il d Pro te ct iv e Serv ic es , whi ch

2 7

in ve st ig at ed an d fo un d th e al le ga ti on to be no t tru e. Howev er, th e in ve st ig at io n le d 2 8

CPS to di sc ov er th at Dou gl as ’s ex -s te ps on ha d se xu al ly ab us ed th e bo y s wh i l e i n

Bran dy’ s care

. Bran dy m ai nt ai ne d th at th e bo y s ne ve r to ld he r ab ou t th e ab us e an d 2 9

th at sh e was un aware of it un ti l to ld by CPS. The ex -s te ps on was ad jud ic at ed an d 3 0

pl aced on pr ob at io n, an d a co ur t pr oh ib it ed co nt act be tw e e n t h e b o ys an d th e ex

3 1

st ep so n. The SAPCR co ur t al so or de red Bran dy to st op da ti ng D o u g la s, bu t sh e

3 2

vi ol at ed th e or de r an d l i e d t o th e SAPCR co ur t ab ou t li vi ng wit h hi m

. If sh e 3 3

vi ol at ed th e res ul ti ng su pe rv is io n or de r, an d al lo wed Dou gl as to be ne ar he r ch il dr en ,

5 RR 86. 2 5

5 RR 86. Brandy

marrie d Doug las shortly

afte r the a ssault. 5 RR 89. 2 6

5 RR 90. 2 7

5 RR 90, 94, 97-98. 2 8

5 RR 87, 94, 96-97. 2 9

5 RR 94-95. 3 0

5 RR 94. 3 1

5 RR 89. 3 2

5 RR 86-87. 3 3

5sh e co ul d h av e lo st cu st od y of t he m

. 3 4

Bran dy ag reed th at ap pe ll an t was aware of he r li e to th e SAPCR co ur t. And

, 3 5

al th ou gh sh e m ai nt ai ne d th at sh e di d no t kn ow wha t ap pe ll an t m ig ht ha ve be en tryin g

to te ll he r th at m or ni ng , sh e ag reed he act ed as th ou gh he as su m ed th e bo y s wou ld no t

be saf e wit h h er. 3 6

App el la nt al so te st ifi ed ou ts id e th e pr es en ce of th e jury fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e

of al lo win g th e tri al co ur t to co ns id er its ev id en ti ary ru li ng

. A week or so pr io r to 3 7

th e as sa ul t, on e of hi s so ns to ld hi m ne w al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t th e ex -s te ps on fro m th at

pr ev io us su m

m er. Tha t s o n a l s o c o n fir m ed wha t th e ot he r so n ha d al way s sa id

, 3 8

whi ch was t ha t Br an dy kn ew ab ou t t he ab us e. 3 9

App el la nt al so de sc rib ed ho w th e bo y s ha d to ld hi m ab ou t Dou gl as st ran gl in g

th em , a nd ho w B ran dy “ de ni ed it li ke ev e r yt h i n g e ls e.” He ag reed th at al l of th at 4 0

ex pe rie nc e wit h B ran dy, D ou gl as , and th e ex -s te ps on co nt rib ut ed to hi s m ot iv at io n

5 RR 93. 3 4

5 RR 87-88. 3 5

5 RR 85. 3 6

5 RR 104. 3 7

5 RR 107. 3 8

5 RR 107-08. 3 9

5 RR 109-10. 4 0

6to as sa ul t Bran dy. W he n sh e arri ve d to pi ck up th e bo y s, ap pe ll an t tri ed to te ll he r 4 1

wha t he ha d le arn ed th e week be fo re bu t sh e di sm is se d it

. Bran dy’ s m ot he r ig no red 4 2

it

, to o. Thi s “ co nt rib ut e[d ] to [m y ] be li ef tha t th ey were go in g to pu t [m y ] bo y s in 4 3

a da ng ero us si tu at io n.” App el l a n t ag reed wit h co un se l th at he fel t th at if Bran dy 4 4

to ok hi s so ns th at th ey “ wou ld be in im m in en t da ng er” an d th at sh e wou ld be pl aci ng

th em “ in a da ng ero us co nd it io n.” App el la nt was co nc ern ed ab ou t Bran dy “ pu tt in g 4 5

th e m ba ck in th e si tu at io n th at th ey fo un d th em se lv es in in Aug us t of 20 11 .” He 4 6

be li ev ed sh e in te nd ed to vi ol a te th e co ur t or de r in te nd ed to pr ev en t th at fro m

ha pp en in g. 4 7

The tri al co ur t he ld fiv e he ari n g s , f ro m pr e-t ria l to th e cl os e of ev id en ce,

4 8

reg ard in g t he ad m is si bi li ty of th is tes ti m on y . App el la nt off ered va rio us th eo rie s.

His pr im ary th eo ry was th at it was cen tra l to hi s de fen se —d efen se of a th ird

5 RR 110. 4 1

5 RR 111. 4 2

5 RR 112. 4 3

5 RR 112. 4 4

5 RR 105-06. 4 5

5 RR 106. 4 6

5 RR 106-07. 4 7

B e f o r e v o i r d i re , t h e t ri al co u rt ad d re s s ed t h e S t at e’ s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e re gar d i n g an d 4 8 misconduct by

Doug las Gillingha m. 3 RR 6 (there is no motion in t he cle rk’s re cord)

.

7pe rs on

. “ [T]he ab us e an d th e al le ge d ab us e at t h e t i me t ha t Dou gl as Gil li ng ha m

pe rp et rat ed on m

y cl ie nt ’s two so ns is rel ev an t, be cau se it is th e ba si s of m y cl ie nt ’s

fear fo r hi s ch il dr en ’s sa fet y in th at

. . . m y cl ie nt be li ev ed sh e was ta ki ng th e ch il dr en

t o D o u gl as Gil li ng ha m ’s ho us e.” Bran dy’ s “ di sm is si ve na tu re

. . . at th e sc en e” 4 9

whe n app el la nt co nf

ro nt ed he r im m ed ia te ly pr io r to hi s ass au lt “ go es in to hi s bel ie f

th at hi s ch il dr en were be in g pu t in ha rm ’s way .” “ [T]he ch il dr en ha ve rep or te d th at 5 0

Br an dy di d no t fo ll ow th e co ur t or de r [an d] co nt in ue d to li ve wit h Dou gl as .” “ I 5 1

th in k th at crea te s a le gi ti m at e co nc ern fo r th e sa fet y of th es e ki ds

, an d he r lying

[p rev io us ly] to th e [SAPC R] Co ur t crea te s a le gi ti m at e co nc ern ab ou t he r fo ll owi ng

t h e co ur t or de rs .” “ The im m in en t th reat

. . . o f un la wfu l fo rce was Bran dy t a k i n g 5 2

th e ki ds in vi ol at io n of the co ur t ord er and in pu tt in g th em in a d an ge ro us si tu at io n.

Her le ve l o f c om

pl ic it y , we do n’t kn ow.” “ [W] he th er an y of it is tru e or no t, if 5 3

[ap pe ll an t] be li ev ed th at al l of th es e ci rcu m st an ces to ok pl ace, an d th at is th e reas on

th at he ch os e to act th e way he di d, I m ean , t ha t is a gr av am en of de fen se of a th ird

4 RR 8. 4 9

4 RR 12-13. 5 0

4 RR 12. 5 1

5 RR 99-100. 5 2

5 RR 120. 5 3

8pe rs on or se lf- de fen se .” “ [A]ll of thi s go es to th e reas on ab le ne ss of m y cl ie nt an d 5 4

th e act io ns th at he to ok to ke ep he r fro m ta ki ng th es e ch il dr en away. ” If ap pe ll an t 5 5

co ul d no t te st ify to th es e fact s , th en he wou ld no t te st ify an d “ we wil l no t ha ve a

de fen se .” 5 6

His se co nd th eo ry was th at “ un d e r [ R u l e of Evi de nc e] 40 4( a)(2 ), Bran dy’ s

ch arac te r as a m ot he r in pu tt in g he r ch il dr en in ha rm ’s way is a pe rti ne nt c h a r act er

tra it th at rel at es sp eci fic al ly to de fen se of a th ird pe rs on , de fen se of th es e ch il dr en .” 5 7

His th ir d th eo ry was th at Bran dy an d he r m ot he r ha d op en ed th e do or by

cl ai m in g th at he was ge ne ral ly ira te
, an d so he sh ou ld be ab le to ex pl ai n th at he was

ira te du e to ab us e h is so ns su ffer ed whi le in he r car e. 5 8

Fo ur th

, ap pe ll an t arg ue d th at Bran dy’ s “ se le ct iv e am ne si a” whe n as ke d ab ou t

ap pe ll an t’s at te m

pt s to ta lk to he r th at da y co ul d no t be fu ll y cro ss -ex am in ed wit ho ut

be in g a bl e to ask he r sp eci fic qu es ti on s ab ou t t he se m at te rs

. 5 9

3 RR 10. 5 4

5 RR 116. 5 5

5 RR 121, 124. 5 6

4 RR 1 0 -1 1

. Af

t er t h e R u l es we re re o rg anized, the applicable citations is T E X

. R. E V I D

. 5 7 404(a) (3) (“I n a criminal case , subject to the limit ations in Rule 412, a defe ndant may offe r evidenc e of a vic tim’s pertinent trait . . . .”)

.

5 RR 102-03. 5 8

4 RR 28. 5 9

9Fi na ll y , de fen se co un se l ad de d, “ Of co ur se , th e se xu al al le ga ti on s th at gi ve m y

cl ie nt a pr et ty s ub st an ti al leg up in th e ch il d cu st od y m at te r. And an as sa ul t fam il y

vi ol en ce so rt of le ve ls th e pl ay in g fie ld

, an d th e juro rs sh ou ld be m ad e aware of th os e

two fact or s o f pl ay

in th e cre di bi li ty of wit ne ss es th at ha ve tes ti fie d.” 6 0

The St at e ex pl ai ne d th at al le ga ti on s aga in st Dou gl as an d hi s ex -s te ps on were

irr el ev an t o r ot he rwis e in ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 40 3. Fi rs t, Doug la s was no t ev en 6 1

th ere whe n th e as sa ul t oc cu rred

. Seco nd

, th e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Dou gl as an d hi s 6 2

ex -s te ps on are to o rem ot e to be rel ev an t to jus ti fy an as sa ul t th at oc cu rred on Mar ch

3, 20 12

, an d th ere were no al le ga ti on s o f a ny m or e rece nt co nd uc t or rep or te d

vi ol at io ns of th e S A P C R c o ur t’s or de rs si nc e th e pr ev io us fal l. Thi rd

, if th e 6 3

tri gg eri ng ev en t were ap pe ll an t’s di sc ov ery of ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n th e week pr io r,

th er e w o u l d s ti ll be no im m ed ia cy jus ti fy in g th e as sa ul t. “ W he n we ta lk ab ou t 6 4

de fen s e of th ird pe rs on , th ere ha s to be th e im m ed ia te an d ne ces sa ry in te rv en ti on

.

One week pr io r is no t im m ed ia te
, You r Hon or

. He ha d pl en ty of ti m e to in te rv en e if

5 RR 122. 6 0

3 RR 7-8; 4 RR 7. 6 1

4 RR 7, 27. 6 2

4 RR 10-11, 5 RR100. 6 3

5 RR 118. 6 4

10he th ou gh t hi s ch il dr en were in da ng er.” Fo ur th

, th e co nd uc t th at oc cu rred al m os t 6 5

ei gh t m on th s pr io r, if rel ev an t, wou ld be su b s t a n ti al ly m or e pr ejud ic ia l th an

pr ob at iv e. Fi fth

, if rel ev an t to ex pl ai n Bran dy’ s po te nt ia l m ot iv e to li e, th e jury was

6 6

al read y aware o f th e cu st od y

di sp ut e. 6 7

The tri al co ur t re fu se d t o a dm it th e ev id en ce. 6 8

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUME NT

A pe rs on is jus ti fie d in us in g fo rce ag ai ns t an ot he r who reas on ab ly ap pe ars to

be us in g or at te m

pt in g to us e un la wfu l fo rce ag ai ns t th em an d it is immedi at el y

ne ces sa ry to do so

. O n e c a n s t ep in to th e sh oe s of a th ird pe rs on an d be jus ti fie d

un de r th e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces

. In th is cas e , a p p e ll an t cl ai m s he was en ti tl ed to an

in st ru ct io n o n d efen se of a th ird pe rs on be cau se he as sa ul te d hi s ex -wif e to pre ve nt

he r fro m pl aci ng th ei r so ns aro un d pe rs on s he be li ev ed ha d hu rt th em be fo re. He was

no t en ti tl ed to th is de fen se be cau se th e fo ur th pa rti es who al le g e d l y p o s e d th e real

th reat were no t pr es en t an d hi s ex -wif e was no t us in g or at te m

pt in g to us e an y fo rce,

un la wfu l or ot he rwis e. As a res ul t, th e tri a l co ur t di d no t err by ex cl ud in g th e

5 RR 100. 6 5

4 RR 27-28. 6 6

5 RR 122. 6 7

5 RR 121-22. 6 8

11ev id en ce “ su pp or ti ng ” h is de fen se

.

ARGUMENT

The co ur t of app eal s reve rs ed ap pe ll an t’s con vi ct io n bas ed on th e th eo ry th at

th e tri al co ur t’s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce an d rel at ed li m it at i o n o n cro ss -ex am in at io n

prev en te d ap pe ll an t fro m pr es en ti ng hi s de fen se

. Bec au se th e ev id en ce, whe n vi ewed

in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to hi s d efen se , wou ld no t en ti tl e hi m to it , t he tri al co ur t

was wit hi n it s di sc ret io n to ex cl ud e ev id en ce th at was irr el ev an t an d ha d th e po te nt ia l

to be un fai rly preju di ci al

.

I. La w

A tri al c o u r t’s ru li ng on th e ex cl us io n or ad m is si on of ev id en ce is typic al ly

rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n an d, if erro r is fo un d, un de r a no n- c o n s t i t u t io na l

st an da rd

. Howev er, th e is su e o f th e ex is te nc e of a de fen se is no t su bm it te d to th e

6 9

jury un le ss e v i d e nc e is ad m it te d su pp or ti ng it

, an d a cl earl y erro ne ou s ru li ng th at 7 0

effe ct iv el y pr ev en ts a de fen da nt fro m pr es en ti ng th at de fen se is co ns ti tu ti on al erro r. 7 1

Thu s, th e pr op rie ty of th e co ur t of ap pe al s’s ho ld in g tu rn s on whe th er ap pe ll an t was

en ti tl ed to an in st ru ct io n o n d efen se of a th ird pe rs on

.

W alters v. State , 247 S.W .3d 204, 217-19 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007). 6 9

T E X

. P E

N A L C O D E § 2.03(c)

. 7 0

Easley v . State , 424 S.W .3d 535, 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 7 1

12Ent it le men t t o d ef en se s g en er al ly

“ If a de fen se is su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce, th en th e de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to an

in st ru ct io n on th at de fen se , ev e n i f t h e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e de fen se is weak or

co nt rad ic te d, an d ev en if th e tr i a l c o u r t i s of th e op in io n th at th e ev id en ce is no t

cred ib le .” W ha t it m ean s to be “ su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce” is th e cru x of th e is su e.

7 2

The ev id en ce i s v ie wed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e de fen da nt
, bu t th at do es 7 3

no t m ean , as de fen se co un se l arg ue d at tri al

, th at “ whe ne ve r [a de fen da nt ] sa y s th ere

is an im m ed ia te th reat an d th at ’s t he way th at h e ’s res po nd in g, th at in an d of it se lf,

jus t in th at co nc lu so ry st at em en t, is so m e ev id en ce to warra nt th e jury be in g ch arg ed

on [de fen se of a th ird pe rs on ]. ” 7 4

The ev id en ce pr es en te d m us t “ su pp or t a rat io na l in fere nc e” th at each el em en t

of th e de fen se is tru e. Thi s req ui rem en t “ pr es erv e[s ] th e in te gr it y of th e jury as th e 7 5

fact fin de r by en su rin g th at it is in st ru ct ed as to a de fen se o n l y w he n, gi ve n th e

ev id en ce, th at de fen se is a rat io na l al te rn at iv e to th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al li ab il it y .” 7 6

“ If a jury were in st ru ct ed as to a de fen se ev en th ou gh th e ev id en ce di d no t rat io na ll y

Shaw v. State , 243 S.W .3d 647, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 7 2

Ferrel v . State , 55 S.W .3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 7 3

5 RR 120. 7 4

Shaw , 243 S.W .3d at 657-58. 7 5

Id . at 658. 7 6

13su pp or t it

, th en th e in st ru ct io n wou ld co ns ti tu te an in vi ta ti on to th e jury to ret ur n a

ve rd ic t ba se d on sp ecu la ti on .” To pr ev en t th is

, th e tri al co ur t “ m us t rel y on it s own 7 7

jud gm en t, fo rm ed in th e li gh t of it s own c o mm on se ns e an d ex pe rie nc e, as to th e

li m it s of rat io na l in fere nc e fro m th e fact s pr ov en .” W he th er it s jud gm en t was 7 8

co rrec t i s a q ue st io n o f la w. 7 9

Defe ns e o f a th ir d p er

so n

If pe rm it te d, ap pe ll an t wou ld ha ve te st ifi ed th at he as sa ul te d Bran dy to pr ot ect

hi s so ns

. “ A pe rs on is jus ti fie d in us in g fo rce.

. . ag ai ns t a n o t h e r to pr ot ect a th ird

pe rs on if: (1 ) un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces as th e act or reas on ab ly be li ev es th em to be

, th e

act or wou ld be jus ti fie d u nd er Se ct io n 9 .31

. . . in us in g fo rce . .

. to pr ot ect hi m se lf

ag ai ns t th e un la wfu l fo rce

. . . he reas on ab ly be li ev es to be th re a t e n i n g t h e th ird

pe rs on he se ek s to pr ot ect ; an d (2 ) th e act or reas on ab ly be li ev es th at hi s in te rv en ti on

is im m ed i at el y ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect th e th ird pe rs on .” In es se nc e, th e Leg is la tu re 8 0

pl aces th e acc us ed “ in th e sh oe s o f th e th ird pe rs on .” Sect io n 9.3 1 s ay s “ a p ers on 8 1

is jus ti fie d in us in g fo rce ag ai ns t an ot he r whe n an d to th e de gr ee th e act or reas on ab ly

Id

. 7 7

Id

. 7 8

Id

. 7 9

T E X

. P E

N A L C O D E § 9.33. 8 0

Hughes v . State , 719 S.W .2d 560, 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ( en banc ). 8 1

14be li ev es th e fo rce is im m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect th e act or ag ai ns t th e ot he r’s us e

or a t t e mp t ed us e of un la wfu l fo rce.” Thi s in cl ud es th e “ rig ht to de fen d fro m 8 2

ap pa ren t da ng er to th e sa m e ex te nt as he wou ld ha d th e da ng er be en real ; pr o v i d e d

he act ed up on a reas on ab le a p p r e h e n s i on of da ng er as it ap pe ared to hi m at th e

ti m e.” 8 3

A ppe lla nt’ s en tit le m en t depe nd s on th e de fin it io ns of “ th e ot he r,” “ im m edia te ly

ne ces sa ry ,” an d “ un la wfu l fo rce,” no ne of whi ch a r e d e f i n e d by st at ut e or by th is 8 4

Co ur t. 8 5

“ The ot he r”

As o n e c ou rt of ap pe al s ha s rece nt ly st at ed

, th e la ng ua ge of th e se lf- de fen se

pr ov is io ns “ lo gi cal ly im

pl ie s th at ‘the ot he r’ who us es or at te m pt s to us e un la wfu l

fo rce as in di cat ed in su bs ect io n (a) of s e c t i o n 9.3 1 is ‘the pe rs on ag ai ns t who m th e

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9.31(a)

. 8 2

Dy s o n v. S t a t e , 6 7 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 6 0

, 4 6 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); s ee Ha me l v. S t a t e , 9 1 6 8 3
S.W .2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“The term ‘re asonably believes’ in § 9.32 e ncompasses the traditional holding that a suspect i s j u s t i fi ed in defe nding ag ainst dang er as he rea sonably

appre hends it.”).

Def ense of a third person actua lly require s two finding s of immediate nec essity —once w hen 8 4 section 9.33(1) incorpora tes section 9.31, and a g ain as a n independe nt require ment in 9.33(2).

This Court has addre ssed “wha t it means to direct fo rc e ‘a gai n s t ’ an o t h er [

, ] ” b u t d i d not 8 5
define “anothe r” in doingso. Boget v. State , 74 S.W .3d 23, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

15f

or ce was us ed .’ ” Thi s m ak es se ns e, as th e pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss of t h e 8 6

act or ’s be li ef is ba se d, in pa rt, on th e act or ’s kn owl ed ge or reas on to be li ev e “ th at th e

pe rs on ag a i n s t w h o m” t he fo rce or de ad ly fo rce was us ed was do in g on e or m or e

en um erat ed act s. Far an d away, th e m os t co m m on cl a i m o f s el f-d efen se in vo lv es 8 7

a d efen da nt who ha rm s s om eo ne he cla im ed was a tt ack in g o r th reat en in g h im

.

The on ly ex cep ti on th is Co ur t ha s reco gn iz ed is th e s o- cal le d “ m ul ti pl e

as sa il an ts ” si tu at io n, in whi ch an act or is jus ti fie d in ki ll in g pe op le who are “ pr es en t

at th e ti m e th e di ffi cu lt y is be gu n an d in an y way are en co ur ag in g, ai di ng or ad vi si ng

th e real as sa ul ti ng pa rty an d it so ap pe ars to th e accu se d.” “ The th eo ry be hi nd th e 8 8

m ul ti pl e as sa il an ts ch arg e is th at
, whe n it is cl ear th at an at ta ck is be in g co nd uc te d by

m ul ti pl e pe op le as a gr ou p, a de fen da nt is jus ti fie d in us in g fo rce ag ai ns t an y m em be r

of th e gr ou p, ev en if th e reci pi en t of th at fo rce is no t en ga gi ng in co nd uc t th at wou ld

,

by it se lf, jus ti fy th e us e of fo rce (o r d e a d l y f o r c e as th e cas e m ay be ). Thu s, th e 8 9

“ real as sa ul ti ng pa rty” m

us t be pr es en t to jus ti fy th e us e of fo rce ag ai ns t an ot he r who

Macias v. State

, 13-13-00319- CR, 2015 Tex. App. L EXI S 2319 a t *18 (Tex. App.–Corpus 8 6 Christi Mar. 12, 2015) (pe t. filed PD-0663-15) ( not desig nated f or publication).

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E §§ 9.31(a) (1), 9.32( b)(1)

. 8 7

Black v. State

, 145 S.W

. 944, 947 (1912) (c i t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). T h e p ro p ri et y of this non- 8 8
statutory instruction is one of the issues raised in Macias v. State

, PD-0663-15 (pending ) (“1. Does the plain lang uag e of Texas Penal Code section 9

. 3 1 (a)

, the self-de fense statute, provide for the justified use of for ce a g ainst another w ho does not use or a ttempt to use unlawful forc e? ”).

Dicke y v. State , 22 S.W .3d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Keller , PJ ., concur ring ). 8 9

16is no t u si ng un la wfu l fo rce.

“ Im m ed ia te ly neces sa ry ”

Aga in

, be cau se se lf- de fen se cas es al m os t al way s in vo lv e cl ai m s th at th e act or

was be in g at ta ck ed or th reat en ed by th e pe rs on th ey ha rm ed

, th ere ha s be en li tt le ne ed

to de fin e “ im m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry .” It is ap pr op ria te to res or t to th e di ct io na ry to

de te rm in e th e co m

m on an d or di na ry m ean in g of it s co ns ti tu en t pa rts

. 9 0

“ Im m ed ia te ly” m ean s “ wit ho ut la ps e of ti m e; wit ho ut de la y ; in st an tl y ; at on ce.” 9 1

“ Neces sa ry ” m ean s “ be in g es se nt ia l, in di sp en sa bl e, or req ui si te .” W he n co m bi ne d 9 2

in co nt ex t, “ im

m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry ” su gg es ts th at th e act or m us t reas on ab ly be li ev e

th ere is no ot he r way to pr ot ect ag ai ns t t h e u s e o r at te m pt ed us e of un la wfu l fo rce

th an to us e fo rce a t t ha t m om en t. 9 3

Cas es de al in g wit h th e de fen se of ne ces si ty are he lp fu l. Co nd uc t i s ju st ifi ed 9 4

by ne ces si ty if, in te r al ia

, “ th e act or reas on ab ly be li ev es th e co nd uc t is im m ed ia te ly

Clint on v. State , 354 S.W .3d 795, 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). 9 0

R A N D O M H O U S E D I C TI O N A R Y O F T H E E N G L I S H L A

N G U A G E 712 (Una

bridg ed ed. 1971)

. 9 1

Id . at 955. 9 2

It is thus unclear how the added requirem ent in section 9.33(2) that “the actor believes 9 3
that his intervention is im m ediately necessary ” could require any additional im m ediac y or necessity

.

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9.22. 9 4

17ne ces sa ry to av oi d im m in en t ha rm .” Alt ho ug h th ere is a real gr am m at ic al di ffer en ce 9 5

be twee n “i m

m in en t ha rm ” an d “ im m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry ,” an d th e Leg is la tu re is

pr es um ed to ha ve in te nd ed di ffer e n t m ean in gs , ov erl ap in ap pl ic at io n is 9 6

un av oi da bl e. It is di ffi c u l t to im ag in e an im m in en t ha rm th at do es no t crea te an

im m ed ia te ne ces si ty to av oi d i t
, or it be in g im m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry to av oi d a ha rm

th at is no t im m in en t. Not su rp ris in gl y , o ne is co m m on ly d efi ne d by t he ot he r: “ An

‘im m in en t ha rm ’ oc cu rs whe n th ere is an em erg en cy si tu at io n an d it is ‘im m ed ia te ly

ne ces sa ry ’ to av oi d t ha t h arm

. . . .” 9 7

As wit h en ti tl em en t ge ne ral ly, th is el em en t is no t pr ov ed by th e ip se di xi t of th e

de fen da nt

. “ [E]ven a de fen da nt ’s si nc ere be li ef th at hi s or he r co nd uc t is im m ed ia te ly

ne ces sa ry to av oi d im m in en t ha rm is un reas on ab le as a m at te r of la w if th e un di sp ut ed

fact s d em on st rat e a co m

pl et e ab se nc e of ‘im

m ed ia te ne ces si ty’ or ‘im m in en t h arm ’

as th os e co nc ep ts are de fin ed in th e la w.” Thi s la ng ua ge was ap pr ov ed by th e co ur t 9 8

of ap pe al s i n t hi s ca se

. 9 9

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 9.22(1). 9 5

Bo yk i n v. S t a t e , 8 1 8 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 2

, 7 8 6 (T ex

. C ri m

. App. 1991) (“ I t would be illogica l to 9 6 presume tha t the L eg islature intended a part of the statute to be super fluous.”).

Schier v . State , 60 S.W .3d 340, 343 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.] 2001, pet. re f’d)

. 9 7 t h

Dewalt v. State , 307 S.W .3d 437, 454 (Tex. App.–Austin 2010, pet. ref ’d). 9 8

Murkledov e v. State , 437 S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 2014, pet. dism’d) (citing 9 9 (continued...)

18“ Unl awfu l fo rce”

“ Fo rce” is no t de fin ed by th e Pen al Co de

. Howev er, in th e co nt ex t of res is ti ng

arre st , th is Co ur t ad op te d t he m ean in g “ vi ol en ce, co m pu ls io n, or con st rai nt ex ert ed

up on or ag ai ns t a pe rs on or th in g,” an d “ vi ol en ce or su ch th reat or di sp la y of ph y si cal

ag gr es si on to ward a pe rs on as reas on ab ly in sp ire s fear of pa in

, bo d i l y ha rm or

de at h.” In sh or t: “ vi ol e n c e or ph y si cal ag gr es si on , or an im m ed ia te th reat 1 0 0

th ereo f.” 1 0 1

Add it io na ll y, th e us e or at te m pt ed us e of fo rce m

us t be “ un la wfu l.”

“ Unl awfu l” is de fin ed by th e Pen al Co de

, an d “ m ean s cri m in al or to rti ou s or bo th an d

in cl ud es wha t wou ld be cri m in al o r t o r t i ou s bu t fo r a de fen se no t am ou nt in g to

jus ti fic at io n or pr iv il eg e.” “ Tort io us ” is no t de fin ed by th e Pen al Co de

, bu t Bl ack ’s 1 0 2

Law Dict io na ry de fin es it as “ [w]ron gf ul ; of th e na tu re of a to rt.” In tu rn , “ to rt” is 1 0 3

de fin ed as , “ A pr iv at e or ci vi l w r o n g o r i n ju ry , ot he r th an br each of co nt ract
, fo r

(...continued) 9 9
Dewalt ); Brazelton v. State

, 947 S.W .2d 644, 648-49 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 1997, no pet.) (“A
defe ndant’s belief that conduct was immediately nece ssary to avoid imminent harm may be deeme d

unrea sonable as a matter of law, howeve r, if undisputed fac ts demons t ra t e a complete absenc e of
evidenc e of immediate nece ssity or imminent harm.”)

.

See D obbs v. State , 434 S.W .3d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citations omitted). 1 0 0

Id

. 1 0 1

T E X

. P E

N A L C O D E § 1.07(a) (48). 1 0 2

B L A C K ’ S L A W D I C TI O N

A R Y 1335 (Specia l Deluxe 5 ed. 1979). 1 0 3 t h

19whi ch th e co ur t wil l pr ov id e a rem ed y in th e f o r m of an act io n fo r da m ag es .” 1 0 4

“ Thre e e l e men t s o f ev ery to rt act io n are: Exi st en ce of le ga l du ty fro m de fen da nt to

pl ai nt iff

, br each of du ty, an d da m ag e as pr ox im at e res ul t.” The re are few cri m in al 1 0 5

cas es ela bo rat in g on th is te rm

. Bu t on e co ur t of ap pe al s h el d t ha t fi li ng a fri vo lo us

la wsu it is no t to rti ou s be cau se , whi le th ere are sa nc ti on s av ai la bl e ag ai ns t th at pa rty,

th ere i s n o i nd ep en de nt to rt c au se of a ct io n fo r da m ag es

. 1 0 6

Rel ev an t to th is cas e, th e v i o l a t i o n of a co ur t’s or de r is typic al ly rem ed ie d

th ro ug h a ci vi l co nt em

pt pr oc e e d i n g, th e pu ni sh m en t fo r whi ch m ay be a fin e or

im pr is on m en t. Alt ho ug h bo th are fo r th e be ne fit of th e op po si ng pa rty, th e fin es are

no t pa y ab le to th at pa rty ; rat he r, th e ob ject of su ch pu ni sh m en t is co m pl ia nc e wit h 1 0 7

th e or de r of th e c ou rt. Cri m in al co nt em pt is al so an op ti on , al th ou gh typic al ly 1 0 8

Id. 1 0 4

Id. 1 0 5

Merritt v. State

, 05-10-01008- CR, 2012 Tex. App. L EXI S 2382 at * 6-7 (Te x . App.–Dallas 1 0 6 Mar. 27, 2012, pe t. ref’ d) (not desig nated f or publication).

Cadle Co. v. Lobingier

, 50 S.W .3d 662, 669 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 2001, pet. denied) ; Ex 1 0 7 parte Dolenz , 893 S.W .2d 677, 680 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, orig inal proce eding , no pet.).

B L A C K ’ S L A W D IC TIO N A R Y at 2 2 3

. I n fa ct
, t h e T ex as S u p re m e C ourt noted that it had 1 0 8
“ea rlier held that in a contempt proce eding a p rivate party cannot recove r damag es for a viol ation
of a c ourt order ,” even wit h an independently pleade d cause of action, but did not have to addre ss it. Cannan v. Gree n Oaks Apts., Ltd.

, 758 S.W .2d 753, 754 (Tex. 1988), ci t i n g Edrington v. Pridham , 65 Tex. 612 (1886).

20res erv ed fo r “ an act do ne in t h e pr es en ce of th e co ur t.” Mo reo ve r, th e Tex as 1 0 9

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at a cri m in al co nt emp t p ro ceed in g ari si ng ou t of a ci vi l

cas e is a ci vi l m at te r. Thi s Co ur t ha s ad he red to th is ho ld in g bu t no t ad dr es se d it s 1 1 0

mer i t s

. As su ch

, it is un cl ear whe th er cri m in al co nt em pt in a ci vi l cas e i s 1 1 1

“ un la wfu l” for th e p ur

po se s o f th e Pen al Co de

.

II

. Appl ic at io n

V i e wed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to ap pe ll an t, he be li ev ed th at hi s u s e o f

fo rce ag ai ns t Bran dy was im m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect hi s so ns fro m ab us e by

Dou gl as an d hi s ex -s te ps on , whi ch he be li ev ed wou ld oc cu r if Bran dy were al lo wed

to lea ve . There are t wo p os si bl e way s t o v ie w th is , bu t n ei th er jus ti fy hi s ac ti on s.

Dou gl as an d h is ex-s te

ps on wer e n ot

th er e

If th e th reat p o s e d w a s ab us e by Do ug la s an d hi s ex -s te ps on , a pp el la nt fai ls

fo r fo ur rel at ed reas on s. Fi rs t, t h e y co ul d no t ha ve be en us in g an y un la wfu l fo rce

ag ai ns t an y on e be cau se th ey were no t th ere. Seco nd

, an d fo r th e sa m e reas on , th ere

is no t ev en a co nc ei va bl e “ m ul ti pl e as sa il an ts ” si tu at io n ap pl ic ab le to Bran dy. Thi rd

,

if B ran dy cou ld be m ad e res po ns ib le fo r th ei r act io ns , a ny p ot en ti al us e o f fo rce b y

B L A C K ’ S L A W D I C TI O N

A R Y at 336. 1 0 9

Harbison v. Mc

Murray , 158 S.W .2d 284, 288 (Tex. 1942) (op. on re h’g ). 1 1 0

Ex parte Rhode

s , 974 S.W .2d 735, 740 & n.14 ( Tex. Crim . App. 1998). 1 1 1

21th em in th e fu tu re was pu rel y sp ecu la ti ve an d can no t be sa ve d b y th e “ ap pa ren t

da ng er” c on st ru ct . Fou rth , and as a res ul t, ap pe ll an t b eat th e wro ng pe rs on

.

Bra nd y d id no t u se an

y fo rc e

Bas in g th e de fen se on Bran dy’ s co nd uc t is si m il arl y un av ai li ng

. The re is no

ev id en ce Bran dy was us in g or at te m pt in g to us e an y ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t he r so ns

.

Nor was th ere an al le ga ti on th at Bran dy wou ld us e fo rce ag ai ns t th em at so m e fu tu re

ti m e. Rat he r, it was th e m ere act of le av in g whi ch fo rm ed th e b a s i s fo r rev ers al

. 1 1 2

Alt ho ug h he r de pa rtu re was ap pa ren tl y no t im m in en t, as it was he r in te nt io n to wait

fo r po li ce an d m ak e a rep or t, ap pe ll an t co ul d ha ve be li ev ed it was an d so in te rv en ti on ,

if jus ti fie d, was im

m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry

. Bu t pu ll in g away fro m a cu rb

, wit ho ut m or e,

i s n o t “ vi ol en ce or ph y si cal ag gr es si on , or an im m ed ia te th reat th ereo f,” ev en if

vi ol at in g t he SAPCR c ou rt’s or de r by d riv in g to Dou gl as ’s h ou se wou ld ha ve be en

“ un la wfu l.”

Gen er al fea r o f f ut ur e h ar m is no t en ou gh

W it ho ut sa y in g so , th e co ur t of app eal s com bi ne d th es e two th eo rie s, th ereb y

m ak in g B r a n d y gl ob al ly res po ns ib le fo r wha t fo ur th pa rti es m ig ht do in th e fu tu re.

Henley v. S t a t e , 4 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 1 0 6

, 1 1 6 (T ex

. Ap p

. – Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 1 4 ) (“ T h e d an ger that 1 1 2 Appellant perc eived lay in the children’ s leaving his home with Br andy

. That perc eived dang er was immediate.”)

.

22Thi s was th e b as is for ap pe ll an t’s Ru le 40 4 a rg um en t. But be in g a ba d m ot he r is 1 1 3

no t us in g “ fo rce” ; th e br oa d al lu si on to ha rm ha s to be co nn ect e d t o a sp eci fic

,

co nc ret e th reat po se d by Dou gl as an d hi s ex -s te ps on , an d th ere is no m ean in gf ul way

to ch arac te riz e th at as “ i mm e di at e.” If th is ba re “ bu t/ fo r” rel at io ns hi p be twee n

Bran dy’ s o nl y

pre se nt act io n a nd so m e act ua ll y un la wfu l forc e th at m ig ht fo ll ow in

th e fu tu re were su ffi ci en t to m eri t an in st ru ct io n on se lf- de fen se , ev eryone wou ld be

en ti tl ed to it ba se d o n t he ir s ay -s o.

App el la nt cre at ed hi s o wn ju st if

ic at io n

Mo reo ve r, ap pe ll an t’s act io ns , if ot he rwis e jus ti fie d, were im m ed ia te ly

ne ces sa ry on ly be cau se he pl aced th e ch il dr en in Bran dy’ s car. Eve ry th in g th at he

cl ai m s jus ti fie d hi s be li ef— hi st or y of pa st ab us e, ne w al le ga ti on s of pa st ab us e wit h

Bran dy’ s awaren es s, Bran dy’ s di sm is si ve ne ss in th e pa st an d th at da y —was kn own

to ap pe ll an t be fo re he pl aced hi s so ns in he r care

. In fact

, ex cep t fo r he r reac ti on th at

da y , whi ch di d no t su rp ris e ap pe ll an t, it was kn own to hi m a week pr io r whe n it was

r e ve al ed in co un se li ng by hi s so ns

. Tha t fact al on e sh ou ld pr ev en t a rat io na l jury

fro m co nc lu di ng th at ap pe ll an t reas on ab ly be li ev ed th is be at in g was im m ed ia te ly

ne ces sa ry

. If th e tri gg eri ng ev en t was Bran dy’ s im m in en t de pa rtu re, no rat io na l juro r

wou ld fin d th at ap pe ll an t di d no t pr ov ok e he r le av in g wit h th e ch il dr en by do in g th e

4 RR 10-11. 1 1 3

23on e th in g t ha t m ad e it po ss ib le

. 1 1 4

Th e co nc ur ri ng

op in io n o ff er s n o s up po rt

Non e of t h e po in ts rai se d se pa rat el y by Ju st ic e Gard ne r in he r co nc ur ren ce

su pp or t t he co ur t’s h ol di ng

.

Fi rs t, sh e po in te d ou t th at “ ev id en ce of pa st vi ol en t act s ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt

is an est ab li sh ed m et ho d of pr oo f in se lf- de fen se cas es , b ecau se th e la w r eco gn iz es

th e fact th at fu tu re co nd uc t m ay be reas on ab ly in ferr ed fro m pa st co n du ct .” 1 1 5

App li ed he re, ap pe ll an t’s kn owl ed ge of

, or be li ef in

, pa st vi ol en t act s by Dou gl as or

hi s ex -s te ps on co ul d ha ve m eri te d a jus ti fic at io n de fen se ag ai ns t th em

. Bu t it wou ld

no t ju st ify beat in g B ran dy un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt ed

.

Seco nd

, Ju st ic e Gard ne r po in te d ou t th at “ a pe rs on ha s t h e rig ht to de fen d

hi m s e l f fro m ‘app aren t da ng er’ to th e sa m e ex te nt as he wou ld if th e da ng er were

real .” But “ ap pa ren t d an ge r” i s no t a li cen se fo r a d efen si ve in st ru ct io n b as ed on 1 1 6

a de fen da nt ’s im ag in ed fut ur e sc en ari os in vo lv in g p eo pl e who are n ot th ere. There

is st il l a th res ho ld reas on ab le ne ss in qu iry. Oth erwi se , a de f e n d a nt wou ld co nt ro l

en ti tl em en t b as ed up on hi s d ecl ared vi ew of th e ev id en ce, an d t he tri al co ur t wou ld

See T E X

. P E

N A L C O D E 9.31(b)( 4). 1 1 4

Henley

, 454 S.W. 3d at 119 (Ga rdner

, J

., concur

ring ) (citing Fielder v. State , 756 S.W .2d 309, 1 1 5 319-20 (Te x . Crim. App. 1988)).

Id

. 1 1 6

24be po werl es s t o p res erv e th e in te gr it y of t he jury.

Thi rd

, th at op in io n sa y s the tr ia l co ur t “ di d no t cred it App el la nt ’s te st im on y an d

di d no t vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to App el la nt bu t, in st ead

,

weig he d th e cred ib il it y of App el la nt ’s pr of fere d te st im on y , it se lf, an d co nc lu de d th at

it was si m pl y no t cred ib le th at th ere was an y im m ed ia te da ng er to th e ch il dr en an d no

reas on ab le ba si s fo r App el la nt to be li ev e th at th ere was .” Onl y th e la st pa rt of th is 1 1 7

st at em en t is accu rat e. Not hi ng in th e reco rd in di cat es th at th e tri al co ur t di d no t ta ke

ap pe ll an t’s te st im on y at face v a l ue

. Rat he r, th e tri al co ur t de te rm in ed th at
,

ap pe ll an t’s si nc e r e be li ef no twi th st an di ng , no pa st al le ga ti on s or ne wly di sc ov ered

in fo rm at io n reg ard in g Dou gl as an d hi s ex-s te ps on ’s co nd uc t, or Brand y ’s fai lu re to

ta ke it se rio us ly, co ul d rat io na ll y jus ti fy th e as sa ul t. Aga in

, if a de fen da nt ’s op in io n

th at he is jus ti fie d is a m at te r of cred ib il it y rat he r th an la w, th e tri al co ur t ha s no ro le

to pl ay an d Sh aw ’s req ui rem en t th at it de te rm in e th e rat io na li ty of th e de fen se sh ou ld

be ov erru le d.

Nec es si ty ca se s a re il lu st ra ti ve

Two ne ces si ty cas es c i t ed ab ov e, Dewa lt an d Sc hi er , se rv e to il lu st rat e th e

un av ai la bi li ty of jus ti fic at io n and th e da ng ers of ex tra ne ou s pr ejud ic ia l in fo rm at io n

in si m il ar d om es ti c si tu at io ns

.

Id . at 121. 1 1 7

25Dewa lt

v. St at e

Afte r a jury gran te d so le m an ag in g con se rv at or sh ip to he r hu sb an d, M ic ha el

,

Dewal t fle d to Mex ic o wit h th ei r ch il d. At he r ag gr av at ed ki dn ap in g tri al

, Dewal t 1 1 8

pr of fere d evi de nc e th at sh e was a “ pr ot ect iv e m ot he r” an d al le ge d th at Mi ch ael an d

two ad ul t co us in s ha d rep eat e d l y ph y si cal ly an d se xu al ly ab us ed he r ch il d th e y ear

be fo re. The ev id en ce th at sh e cl ai m ed su pp or te d he r reas on ab le be li ef th at fle ei ng

1 1 9

wit h he r ch il d was “ im m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry ” to av oi d “ im m in en t ha rm ” in cl ud ed th at

Mi ch ael ha d no t be en pe rm it te d u ns up erv is ed vi si ta ti on si nc e th e ab us e al le ga ti on s

su rfac ed

. Sh e al so sa id th is te st im on y reb ut te d th e St at e’s ev id en ce of he r in te nt

.

1 2 0 1 2 1

The St at e arg ue d th at
, un le ss Dewal t co ul d rai se a ne ces si ty de fen se , an y ev id en ce

reg ard in g a ll eg ed ab us e wou ld be irr el ev an t an d e xt rem el y pre jud ic ia l. 1 2 2

The c o u r t pe rm it te d ev id en ce th at Dewal t ha d su ed to te rm in at e Mi ch ael ’s

pa ren ta l ri gh ts ba se d o n a ll eg at io ns th at he ha d “ ph y si cal ly end an ge red ” th ei r ch il d

Dewalt , 307 S.W .3d at 441-42. 1 1 8

Id . at 447. 1 1 9

Id . at 448, 455. 1 2 0

Id . at 449. 1 2 1

Id . at 447. 1 2 2

26th at were of a na tu re th at wou ld cau se a “ pr ot ect iv e m ot he r” g r e a t c o n c e rn

. 1 2 3

Howe v e r , th e co ur t co nt in ue d to ex cl ud e an y te st im on y de lv in g in to th e sp eci fic

na tu re or de ta il s of th e al le ge d “ ph y si cal en da ng erm en t.” Dewal t was al so de ni ed 1 2 4

an in st ru ct io n on ne ces si ty. Dewal t cl ai m ed on a p p e a l t ha t th e tri al co ur t’s 1 2 5

ex cl us io n o f th e ev id en ce p rev en te d h er fro m m ou nt in g a de fen se

. 1 2 6

The co ur t of ap pe al s reject ed th es e cl ai m s. W it h re g a r d t o ad m is si bi li ty

ge ne ral ly, it he ld :

In co nt ras t to wha t is at be st li m it ed pr ob at iv e va lu e in co nt ro ve rti ng th e St at e’s al le ga ti on s of sp eci fic in te nt
, th e fact or s w ei ghi ng ag ai ns t ad m is si on of Dewal t’s

e v i d e nc e go in g to he r pr of es se d m ot iv e to ‘pro te ct he r so n’--es pe ci al ly

se ns at io na l de ta il s of th e al le ge d abu se --were hi gh

. Evi de nc e of se xu al ab us e,

e sp eci al ly al le ga ti on s of su ch ab us e pe rp et rat ed by a pa ren t on a ch il d

, i s

ex tre m el y pr ejud ic ia l.

. . . [T]his ev id en ce wou ld ha ve in te rjec t ed in to tri al an

em ot io na ll y ch arg ed se t of co ll at eral is su es wit h gr eat po te nt ia l to co nf us e an d

m is le ad th e jury. A n d o n c e th os e is su es were pl aced be fo re th e jury,

. . . it

wou ld be ne ces sa ry to es se nt ia ll y re-t ry th e is su es in th e ch il d- cu st od y cas e,

. .

. fu rth er co nf

us in g an d di st ract in g th e jury fro m th e is su es th at pr op erl y co nt ro l

un de r th e ap pl ic ab le law. 1 2 7

Rel y in g hea vi ly on Sh aw , it als o c on cl ud ed “ th at th e d is tri ct co ur t di d no t err

in de te rm in in g th at
, as a m at te r of la w, sh e f a i l ed to pr es en t le ga ll y su ffi ci en t

Id . at 449. 1 2 3

Id

. 1 2 4

Id

. 1 2 5

Id . at 450-51. 1 2 6

Id . at 453 (interna l citations omit ted). 1 2 7

27ev id en ce th at sh e ‘reaso na bl y be li ev ed ’ ki dn ap pi ng [h er ch il d] was ‘im m ed ia te ly

ne ces sa ry ’ to av oi d ‘im

m in en t ha rm .’ ” It was un di sp ut ed th at
, at th e ti m e th e jury 1 2 8

de ci de d cu st od y ag ai ns t he r, th e ch il d was in San Ant on io

, a ha lf- ho ur or m or e dr iv e

fro m th e co ur th ou se

. “ W ha te ve r th reat of ha rm th at Mi ch ael co ul d ha ve pr es en te d 1 2 9

to [th e ch il d] fro m Dewal t’s pe rs pe ct iv e was no t so m et hi ng th at was go in g to ha pp en

no w.” 1 3 0

Sc hi er v. St at e

Sch ie r h a d s c h e du le d vi si ta ti on s wit h hi s da ug ht er, who li ve d wit h he r

m ot he r. One da y , Sch ie r pi ck ed hi s ch il d up fo r th e week en d an d ke pt he r un ti l he

1 3 1

was arre st ed fo r in te rfer en ce wit h ch il d cu st od y ei gh t m on th s l a t e r

. Sch ie r 1 3 2

co m pl ai ne d th at th e tri al co ur t’s ex cl us io n of hi s te st im on y reg ard in g th e reas on s fo r

hi s act io ns ha rm ed hi m be cau se , wit ho ut it

, he co ul d no t m eet th e su bm it te d de fen se

of ne ces si ty. Sch ie r’s pr of fere d te st im on y in cl ud ed al le ga ti on s th at hi s da ug ht er’s 1 3 3

m ot he r ab us ed dr ug s and al co ho l, was of te n in co he ren t as a res ul t, an d dr ov e dr un k

Id . at 453-54. 1 2 8

Id . at 455. 1 2 9

Id . (citation and quota tions omi tted). 1 3 0

Schier , 60 S.W .3d at 342. 1 3 1

Id

. 1 3 2

Id

. 1 3 3

28wit h th ei r da ug ht er in th e car. W or se , hi s da ug ht er to ld hi m th at sh e ha d wit ne ss ed 1 3 4

do m es ti c vi ol en ce at he r m ot he r’s ho us e an d was afra id whe n sh e was th ere. And

, 1 3 5

aft er he r la st vi si t, Sch ie r no ti ced pr ob le m s wit h freq ue nt ur in at io n an d be ga n ta ki ng

hi s da u g h t e r t o a th erap is t. He was to ld by a sc ho ol nu rs e th at it co ul d in di cat e 1 3 6

se xu al ab us e. Th e c o u r t o f a p p e al s affi rm ed

, ho ld in g th at th e ev i d e n c e c o u l d

1 3 7

ha ve be en pro pe rly excl ud ed as i rrel ev an t t o a ne ces si ty defen se :

The en vi r o n ment ap pe ll an t so ug ht to av oi d fo r hi s da ug ht er, if accu rat el y
po rtr ay ed , is de pl or ab le an d wo ul d m ak e it ex tre m el y di ffi cu lt fo r an y ch il d t o

en du re or su rv iv e un ha rm ed

. W e ag ree th at su ch c on di ti on s (ag ai n, as su m in g th e tru th th ereo f) pr es en t a su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od of la st in g ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm

. Howev er, no ne of th e ab ov e te st im on y m ak es it an y m or e or le ss li ke ly th at th ere

was an em erg en cy si tu at io n, ‘on th e po in t of ha pp en in g,’ whi ch req u i red

ap pe ll an t to act im m ed ia te ly. The ha rm fu l ev en ts ab ou t whi ch a p p el la nt

te st ifi ed can no t be m ad e im m in en t th ro ug h hi s fai lu re to ta ke le ga ll y ap pr op ria te

act io n s oo ne r rat he r th an lat er. 1 3 8

II I. Con cl us io n

A l t h ou gh tri al co ur ts sh ou ld err on th e si de of cau ti on whe n co ns id e r i n g a

req ue st ed de fen si ve in st ru ct io n, th ey ret ai n a du ty to pr ev en t irr at io na l ve rd ic ts ba se d

on sp ecu la ti on

. “ [T]he la w of se lf- de fen se

. . . ha s well -d efi ne d li m it at io ns , m ark ed

Id . at 343. 1 3 4

Id . at 343-44. 1 3 5

Id . at 344. 1 3 6

Id

. 1 3 7

Id . (citation omitted). 1 3 8

29ou t by hu m an ex pe rie nc e. Thu s t h i s rig ht can no t be in vo ke d by th e fear s of th e

pe rs on de fen di ng , bu t th e la w req ui res th at th ere m us t be a reas on ab le ap pe aran ce of

da ng er to c a l l it in to ex erci se .” To th is en d, th e tri al co ur t “ m us t rel y on it s own 1 3 9

ju d g m en t, fo rm ed in th e li gh t of it s own co m m on se ns e an d ex pe rie nc e, as to th e

li m it s of rat io na l in fere nc e fro m th e fact s pr ov en .” Eve n whe n vi ewed in th e li gh t 1 4 0

m os t fav or ab le to ap pe ll an t, no rat io na l jury wou ld fin d t h a t b e a t in g y ou r ex -wif e

be cau se sh e m ig ht la te r pl ace y ou r ch il dr en ne ar so m eo ne who y ou be li ev e i nju red

th em th e p rev io us su m

m er i s ju st ifi ab le

.

The tri al co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g th e pr of fere d te st im on y

be cau se it was irr el ev an t to an in st ru ct io n on de fen se of a th ird pe rs on

. Bec au se th e

co ur t of ap pe al s ba se d it s rev ers al on a si ng le ha r m a n a l y si s co ve rin g bo th th is

al le ge d erro r an d th e al le ge d de ni al of ap pe ll an t’s rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e on th e sa m e

ge ne ral to pi c, rem an d is ap pr o p r i a t e so th at it m ay reco ns id er th e co nf ro nt at io n 1 4 1

cl ai m in li gh t o f hi s l ack of e nt it le m en t t o t he de fen se

.

Ex parte Taylor , 28 S.W . 957, 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1894). 1 3 9

Shaw , 243 S.W .3d at 658. 1 4 0

He n l ey , 4 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t 1 1 7 (“ J u s t as t h e t ri al co u rt ’s er ro rs o f ex cl u d i n g Ap p el l an t ’s 1 4 1 testimony justify ing his a ctions and preventing him from cr oss-examining B randy and her mother
about the bases for his actions and his state of mind overla p, so does the h ar m ca u sed by both

err ors.”)

.

30PRAYER FOR RELIE F

W HEREFORE, th e St at e o f Tex as pra y s t ha t t he Co ur t o f Cri m in al App eal s

rev ers e th e jud gm en t o f th e Co ur t o f App eal s.

Res pe ct fu ll y

su bm it te d,

/s/ Jo hn R. Mes si ng er JOHN R. MESSI NGER
Ass is ta nt Sta te Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y Bar I.D. No. 2 40 53 70 5

P.O. Box 13 04 6
Aus ti n, Tex as 78 71 1
in fo rm at io n@ sp a.te xa s.g ov 51 2/ 46 3- 16 60 (Tele ph on e)
51 2/ 46 3- 57 24 (Fax )

31CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

The un de rs ig ne d c ert ifi es th at acco rd in g t o t he W or dP erfe ct word co un t t oo l t hi s

do cu m en t co nt ai ns 7,6 03 word s.

/s/ Jo hn R. Mes si ng er Jo hn R. Mes si ng er Ass is ta nt Sta te Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y

CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

The un de rs ig ne d h ereb y

cert ifi es th at on th is 17 da y of J ul y , 20 15 , a tru e th

an d c or rect co py of th e St at e’s Bri ef o n t he Meri ts ha s eF il ed or e -m ai le d to th e

fo ll owi ng :

Deb ra Wind so r Ass is ta nt Cri m in al Dis tri ct Att or ne y 40 1 W. Belk na p S t. Fo rt Wort h, Tex as 76 19 6 Dwin ds or @t arra nt co un tytx.g ov

W il li am S. Harri s 30 7 West Sev en th Str eet , Sui te 19 05
Fo rt Wort h, Tex as 76 10 2

wm sh arri s.l aw@ sb cg lo ba l.n et

/s/ Jo hn R. Mes si ng er Jo hn R. Mes si ng er Ass is ta nt Sta te Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y

32