Court Opinion

ID: 9783501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:47:30.235625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:24.688306
License: Public Domain

BILL MEIER, Justice,
dissent to opinion on appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration.
Appellant Paul Krajcovic was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because there is no evidence that he reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself from Shawn. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.31(a) (West 2011) (providing that the use of force against another for self-defense is justified “when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force”); id. § 9.32 (West 2011) (providing that the use of deadly force requires a showing that the use of deadly force is immediately necessary); Preston v. State, 756 S.W.2d 22, 25 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ ref d) (“The mere fact that the accused ‘believed’ the complainant might in some manner attack the accused, without evidence of any overt act or words that would lead the accused to reasonably believe he was in danger, is insufficient to give rise to a right to an instruction and charge on self-defense.”). D.K.’s response of “Um-hum, um-hum” to the prosecutor’s question that Appellant was “probably pretty scared because he’s had to stop somebody who broke in the house” is not evidence that Shawn caused Appellant to reasonably believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to defend himself.
Further, Appellant was not entitled to an instruction in accordance with the “castle doctrine” because there is no fact issue that Appellant murdered Shawn at any point other than in August 2007. Darin Robinson stated no less than three times during his testimony that he last saw Shawn in August 2007. Shawn’s mother testified that she last spoke to Shawn on August 27, 2007, and that his employer had also called her because Shawn did not report to work. John Lambert testified that August 28, 2007, was the last time that anyone had seen Shawn. The condition of Shawn’s body on September 6, 2007 — “markedly decomposed” and in the stage of post-rigor mortis — suggests that Appellant murdered Shawn in August 2007. Wayne Shoffner’s testimony is not “affirmative evidence” that Appellant murdered Shawn on or after September 1, 2007, see Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504, 513 (Tex.Crim.App.2007), and D.K.’s testimony, by itself or “combined with his aunt’s testimony,” contains no evidence that the murder occurred in September 2007.
*532Because the majority holds that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, I respectfully dissent.