top of page
Self-Defense Attorneys in Houston, Texas
The right of self-defense is fundamental under Texas law. Individuals have the right to self-defense in a criminal case because it is a justification "affirmative defense" listed in the Texas Penal Code Article 9.31.
What is acting in self-defense in Texas?
The self-defense law holds that "a person is justified in using force against another 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." The most important part of the self-defense law is the idea that the force must be immediately necessary. That means that the unlawful force being used against you is happening RIGHT NOW and needs to be dealt with.
When do you lose the right to self-defense?
You may not use self-defense if you provoked the attack, or if you are otherwise engaged in arrestable criminal conduct. The right of self defense also many not be used in response to verbal provocation alone. That means words alone are never enough to justify using force against another person. Now it does not say that if someone is screaming in your face that they are going to kill you and then lunge towards you that you can't do anything to them until they hit you. That result would be unjust. You must only form a reasonable belief that the use of force is immediately necessary to protect yourself.
What is the stand your ground doctrine?
The castle doctrine is a legal defense concept which recognizes that a person need not run away from a fight especially in their own home.
subsection (e) of the self-defense statute reads, "(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section." It means that you can stand your ground and fight back instead of having to retreat like the law requires in some other states. In Texas we believe in a strong right to Self-Defense.
What is the castle doctrine?
The castle doctrine says that you have the right to defend your own property from criminals by using force. If you use force against another and you believe that the person you have used force against "unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment" you are presumed to have been justified in your use of force.
Similarly if the person you use force against unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment you will be justified or if the person you use force against was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery you will be justified.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another 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. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Texas Former Prosecutors
Dismissed
DWI - Blood Test
Dismissed
DWI - Blood Test
Dismissed
DWI
Dismissed
DWI - Blood Test
bottom of page