Court Opinion

ID: 9771860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:56:34.518562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:38.403892
License: Public Domain

DEVANY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority and would enter a judgment of acquittal for appellant.
The majority correctly notes that self-defense is a “defense” under section 2.03 of the Penal Code. As such, once the issue is raised, the State must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Luck v. State, 588 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Therefore, on review, we must determine if there was sufficient evidence for any rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was not acting in self-defense. Cf. Van Guilder v. State, 709 S.W.2d 178, 181 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (where affirmative defense at issue, reviewing court must determine if any rational trier of fact could have concluded that the defendant failed to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence).
The courts frequently state that self-defense is not proved as a matter of law unless the evidence is “uncontradicted.” Whitfield v. State, 492 S.W.2d 502, 504 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). I suggest that such statements should be construed as shorthand statements of the rule that “[i]f there *831is any evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and if the trier of facts believes that evidence, we are not in a position to reverse the judgment on sufficiency grounds.” Lawrence v. State, 700 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). To construe these statements otherwise would be to replace the ultimate burden of proof chosen by the legislature with one of the judiciary’s choosing.
Other states do vary as to the degree of proof required to show self-defense: (1) defendant must merely raise reasonable doubt; (2) defendant must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence; or (3) defendant must prove self-defense to the satisfaction of the jury. C. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 28 (13th ed.1972). Nevertheless, the statutory mandate, as well as the case law under Luck, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt is clear in Texas.
I conclude that even if the trial court, as the trier of facts, rejected all of appellant’s testimony that she acted in self-defense, the State has riot produced any affirmative evidence establishing lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The transaction in the case at hand may be summarized as follows: The scene is at eleven o’clock at night in the appellant’s home. She is naked, getting ready to go to bed. Present with her in the house is her stepdaughter. Suddenly, there is a pounding on the front door of the house. The daughter answers and, without opening the door, ascertains that it is the estranged husband of the appellant. His voice is loud and threatening and demands entrance. The daughter pleads with him to go away. He ignores her plea and continues pounding and attempting to break in. The appellant comes to the door, still naked, and tells the daughter to get a knife to place in a space around the door to hold it in place. After inserting the knife in place, appellant told the daughter to run and get the police.
At this point we have the appellant’s testimony telling us that the estranged husband broke in and began hitting the appellant, stating “Bitch, I’m going to kill you.” Appellant picked up the knife that slipped from the door frame because of the husband’s kicking on the door. Appellant used the knife to defend herself. He reeled and stumbled back onto the porch and fell dead in front of the house. Sobbing, she went to her husband lying on the ground. She threw the knife into a trash can. When the police came, appellant was still bending over the dead body of the husband sobbing. She led the police officer to the trash can where she threw the knife.
This transaction raises self-defense as an issue. The State has the burden of proving that self-defense did not exist to justify the killing. The evidence provided by the state must be probative on that particular issue. No matter how hostile appellant was to the husband on previous occasions, at that point in time she had a right to be in her home and to retire for the night. The husband was the aggressor. He threatened physical injury to the appellant. He broke into the house. He was a man with presumably greater strength than appellant, who was a female. None of these facts were refuted by the State. Under the theory advanced by the majority, the appellant was denied the right of self-defense under any circumstances because of statements made prior to the transaction and hostility between the appellant and the estranged husband. Certainly, it would be difficult to think of a more fitting setting for the right of self-defense. If the appellant had any intent to kill the deceased, it would seem ridiculous to assume such intent while she was standing naked preparing to go to bed. The threat came from outside the house. Even the worst of mankind has a right to defend himself or herself within the walls of his or her home. The deceased was not invited; indeed, the evidence shows that he was warned by the police earlier in the day to stay away from the appellant, and it was conclusively established that the appellant made three requests of her husband to leave before the door burst open. For the prosecution to leave the impression that the appellant committed murder by the happenchance of *832the drunken husband coming to attack appellant, is without merit.
I would hold that the State failed to produce any evidence to refute the claim of self-defense. The statements of the appellant prior to the transaction in this case could not be considered to erase the claim of self-defense because the deceased was the actor who brought about the killing by attempting to break into appellant’s house. If the appellant had, for instance, gone to her husband’s, home on the premise of talking with him and then killed him, such prior statements could conceivably be considered as probative on the issue of self-defense. This would be evidence refuting the self-defense theory. But this was simply not the case. The prior threat, under these circumstances, is irrelevant to the aggressive behavior of the husband who was immediately threatening the appellant. Cf. United States v. Moore, 571 F.2d 76, 82 (2d Cir. 1978) (statement by one defendant of intent to take kidnapped victim out of state insufficient to show actual interstate transportation).
I would acquit appellant.