Court Opinion

ID: 9681258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:46:43.840987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.902991
License: Public Domain

JUNELL, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe that self-defense was a fact issue to be determined by the jury, I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority.
In this appeal the principal question is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not reasonably believe deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself against Lathrop’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.
In resolving this sufficiency question we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and the trial court’s judgment. McGoldrick v. State, 682 S.W.2d 573, 577 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Collins v. State, 754 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d); Williams v. State, 710 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, pet. ref'd).
A review of the entire record in this case convinces me that there was a fact issue for jury determination concerning whether appellant in fact believed deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself against Lathrop’s use or attempted use of deadly force. Appellant admitted Lathrop had no weapon. Appellant did not testify at trial that Lathrop tried to take the gun away from appellant or even that appellant thought or believed that Lathrop was trying to take the gun away from him when Lathrop lunged at appellant.
More importantly, even if appellant’s evidence showed that he believed deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself against Lathrop’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, under the entire record before us I believe that the reasonableness of that belief was a fact issue for the jury’s determination.
I would overrule appellant’s first point of error; therefore, I respectfully record my dissent.