Court Opinion

ID: 9680689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:36:41.881339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.979363
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority reverses this conviction because of the failure of the trial court to charge on the law of self-defense. As I read appellant’s testimony it does not raise the issue of self-defense. I must, therefore, dissent.
Although the appellant testified that the deceased threatened her, she did not testify she feared he would actually carry out his threats. Instead, all the way through, she testified that she did not intend to kill the deceased and that the shotgun discharged accidentally.1
A defense of accident such as that presented here, where the appellant testifies that she did not intend to shoot the deceased is inconsistent with a self-defense which requires a conscious act of self-protection in the face of threatened harm. See Whitehead v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 72.
In Rice v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 366, 242 S.W.2d 394, we concluded that:
“Appellant, having testified, made his own defensive theory and is bound thereby.”
I dissent.

. “Q. Did you intend to kill him?
“A. No sir. I wouldn’t hurt nobody. I loved him because he’s the only thing I had. ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜
“Q. And you say you got the shotgun and it went off accidentally?
“A. Yes, sir. I don’t think I had my hand on the trigger. I don’t know. ⅜ ⅜ ⅜⅞ ⅝ ⅜
“Q. And you say it went off accidentally?
“A. Yes, sir. I didn’t mean to shoot him.

“Q. And, of course, you know what happens when you pull the trigger on a shotgun, don’t you?
“A. Yes, sir. I didn’t mean to shoot him. I didn’t want to hurt him.”