Court Opinion

ID: 9643425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:29:00.51118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:00.457975
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(Dissenting)
I cannot bring myself to agree with my brethren herein. The effect of their holding is to so limit and circumscribe the act of the legislature which denounces the making of a serious threat to take human life as to render the same inoperative.
In my judgment, there can be no question but that the threat was seriously made. It must be remembered that the prosecuting ¡witness thought her threat to take his life was a serious one, because he immediately got off the tractor and abandoned the venture. Had the facts been different and had the prosecuting witness ignored the threat and had appellant failed to carry put the same, then there would be some reason to doubt that the threat was seriously made.
My brethren seem to feel that the prosecution is not warranted because appellant thought she was entitled to a place in the line ahead of the injured party and that she was therefore entitled to use the gun in order to insure that she did not lose such “right.” They say that Article 1267, Penal Code, excuses her. It reads:
“A threat that a person will do any act merely to protect himself, or to prevent the commission of some unlawful act by another, does not come within the meaning of this chapter.”
There can be no contention from the facts that she was protecting herself, and therefore her sole excuse must lie in the fact that the prosecuting witness was about to commit “an unlawful act.”
*631The facts establish that all the prosecuting witness was trying to do was to take his place in line as previously designated by his employer.
The majority opinion overlooks the fact that the record fails to reveal that their employer had ever made known to the injured party his decision to advance appellant to his place in the line. We are therefore confronted with a situation where both parties thought they were entitled to the same place, and appellant seriously threatens to take the life of one who, in good faith, disputes her claim.
Be that as it may, I earnestly submit that the act of the prosecuting witness, in attempting to secure the loading of his truck, cannot logically be said to be “an unlawful act” which had been designated by the legislature as penal. The clear mandate of the legislature would require one who defends under Article 1267 to point to an article of the Penal Code about to be committed by the person whom he threatens.
I am convinced that the policy of the law should be to discourage all violence and threats of violence and discourage all efforts to adjudicate civil rights by means of force. I am also convinced that courts should not succumb to the temptation to act as legislative bodies.
Being of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of my brethren.