Court Opinion

ID: 9811846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:30:44.678183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:55.552226
License: Public Domain

J. BONNER DORSEY,
dissenting (Retired).
I am convinced the charge on justification should have been given and it was error for the trial court not to do so. The only question in this case, both at trial and on appeal, is whether the punishment meted out to the two residents of the school was justified in law. By refusing to charge the jury on the law of the “educator’s justification” defense, the jury was not told that the defendant could use force to the extent he reasonably believed it was necessary to maintain discipline.
Appellant admitted the material facts alleged in the indictment. He admitted requiring the boys to enter the ditch and shovel dirt from one side to the other all night as a condition of their remaining at the Lighthouse school. That certainly substantially admits the conduct he was accused of by the indictment. The jury should have been entitled to determine whether he was justified in his actions upon a proper charge explaining the defense. Not to allow that defense here is to effectively eliminate it in all conceivable cases. The majority has misread the main cases, Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Crim.App.1990) and Martinez v. State, 775 *668S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), and disregarded their teachings.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial. I respectfully dissent.