Castle Doctrine Case in San Antonio- Closing Arguments

[majormadmax]

It's tough to make any kind of decision based only on what the media reports, let's hope the jury gets the full story and decides accordingly...

 

[Bithabus]

Not good for the homeowner unless there is a sympathy vote.

+1

His own words condemn him.

 

[Bithabus]

In a nutshell, no. However, the Castle Doctrine is badly misunderstood and cited often when it is not applicable. There are also TWO parts of the Castle Doctrine that apply specifically to the justifications for using deadly force. If interested, I am writing a paper on the Castle Doctrine and can post it on this forum when complete. I was fortunate enough to recently have a Dallas County Felony Prosecutor and a Criminal Defense Attorney (both who have handled deadly force cases) in separate classes last month. I spent quite a bit of time with both of them going over the three legs of the Castle Doctrine; surprisingly, they both agreed on the application of the law. My paper is based on those discussions

Please post the paper when it is finished.

 

[Sid]

In a nutshell, no. However, the Castle Doctrine is badly misunderstood and cited often when it is not applicable. There are also TWO parts of the Castle Doctrine that apply specifically to the justifications for using deadly force. If interested, I am writing a paper on the Castle Doctrine and can post it on this forum when complete. I was fortunate enough to recently have a Dallas County Felony Prosecutor and a Criminal Defense Attorney (both who have handled deadly force cases) in separate classes last month. I spent quite a bit of time with both of them going over the three legs of the Castle Doctrine; surprisingly, they both agreed on the application of the law. My paper is based on those discussions

Would definitely like to read it when you're done.

 

[Sid]

As I understand from previous threads, under the Castle Doctrine, you are justified to shoot suspicious persons on your property at night. That's property and not house.

Another section justifies a firing if you believe there is no other way to recover stolen property, even if they left your property grounds.

The verdict and result of the final appeals process will be interesting indeed.

I'm confused as to how the Defense knows the drunken 19 year old kid thought he was at his sister's house after the fact. Isn't this speculation?

 

[Renegade]

As I understand from previous threads, under the Castle Doctrine, you are justified to shoot suspicious persons on your property at night. That's property and not house. No, this is not part of CD

Another section justifies a firing if you believe there is no other way to recover stolen property, even if they left your property grounds. No, this is not part of CD

Those things are not Castle Doctrine. Here is what CD is about:

Legislative Session: 80(R)

Senate Bill 378
Senate Author: Wentworth et al.
Effective: 9-1-07
House Sponsor: Driver et al.


Senate Bill 378 amends provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person. The bill creates a presumption of reasonableness for the belief of a person who takes such action that the use of force or deadly force to protect the actor was immediately necessary and provides that the presumption would be reasonable if the actor:
1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force or deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or attempted to enter, the actor's home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; unlawfully and with force removed, or attempted to remove, the actor from the home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or was committing or attempting to commit certain serious crimes;
2) did not provoke the person against whom the force or deadly force was used; and
3) was not otherwise engaged in certain criminal activity at the time the force or deadly force was used.
The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force.
Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force.

 

[txinvestigator]

As I understand from previous threads, under the Castle Doctrine, you are justified to shoot suspicious persons on your property at night. That's property and not house.

Completely wrong. You cannot use deadly force against a person for merely being "suspicious" and on your property.

Another section justifies a firing if you believe there is no other way to recover stolen property, even if they left your property grounds.

The Castle Doctrine had NOTHING to do with use of force to protect property. However, the use of force laws do make a justification for using deadly force against a person who is fleeing with property IMMEDIATELY after committing Burglary, Robbery or theft during the nighttime IF one of the following conditions exist;

you reasonably believe that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury[/quote]

 

[Sid]

I was looking at this section, particularly the highlights. Sorry, didn't realize this wasn't part of the Castle Doctrine. Just made sense to take 'em both in since they relate to standing your ground in a place you are legally allowed to be.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.



Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

It was night time. The kid was trespassing and possibly belligerent. He might have been in the house, hence the wife's reaction provoking a reasonable belief that his wife was in imminent threat.

If I'm understanding the statute wrong, then I'll stand corrected.

 

[Bithabus]

I was looking at this section, particularly the highlights. Sorry, didn't realize this wasn't part of the Castle Doctrine. Just made sense to take 'em both in since they relate to standing your ground in a place you are legally allowed to be.

It was night time. The kid was trespassing and possibly belligerent. He might have been in the house, hence the wife's reaction provoking a reasonable belief that his wife was in imminent threat.

If I'm understanding the statute wrong, then I'll stand corrected.

9.41 is talking about force, but not deadly force. In this case, if the quotes attributed to the shooter are accurate, once the intruder exited the building and started fleeing any justification for deadly force ceased to apply.

 

[txinvestigator]

I was looking at this section, particularly the highlights. Sorry, didn't realize this wasn't part of the Castle Doctrine. Just made sense to take 'em both in since they relate to standing your ground in a place you are legally allowed to be.

It was night time. The kid was trespassing and possibly belligerent. He might have been in the house, hence the wife's reaction provoking a reasonable belief that his wife was in imminent threat.

If I'm understanding the statute wrong, then I'll stand corrected.

Trespassing and belligerent are not listed in justifications under 9.42. To be able to use deadly force 9.41 must apply, AS WELL AS those things listed in 9.42.

 

[Syntax]

Hey guys, my first post after stumbling across the forum and thread here; it was declared a mistrial for those who haven't heard.

Judge Declares Mistrial In Fatal Home Invasion Shooting - San Antonio & Texas News Story - KSAT San Antonio

"Jury Misconduct"

 

[txinvestigator]

I imagine the prosecutors will try him again.

 

[MR Redneck]

Interesting!
I understand why it became a mistrial.
The simple that some drunk dumb bastard was pissing a man off made them all think " what if it was at my house"!!!
Sure glad I dont drink.

 

[shortround]

It was reported tonight that the jury consists of 11 women and 1 man.

I doubt the "sympathy" card will work for the defendant, if any of those women ever had a son who drank a few too many beers and did something stupid.

That alone speaks volumes about the defendant's ability to hire a competent criminal defense attorney and his skill at jury selection.

Were I on the jury, I would simply ask: What harm did the drunken intruder cause?

How did he gain entrance (the door was allegedly unlocked).

Who in their right mind goes to bed in San Antonio unless the premises are fully locked down?

The defendant took the stand in his own defense and said "he feared for his life" when the decedent was not armed or in possession of any of the defendant's property.

The defendant stated he "fumbled with his gun and it went off." Yet, he shot the kid at least five times.

The shooting happened outside the residence, and the decedent lay dead in the street, not in the defendant's home or yard.

If those facts turn out to be true, I would have to vote to convict for murder, no matter that he has a valid concealed carry license.

If the defendant is convicted, the Anti-s will have yet another (very rare) cause to limit our concealed carry rights, and will focus on the allegation the shooter was naked at the time he shot the innocent fellow.

Be well.

 

[majormadmax]

First, it doesn't matter if the door was locked or not; if he illegally gained entry into the residence and the homeowner felt he was a threat, then he had the right to defend himself.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the assailant was armed or not, if the homeowner felt he posted a threat then he was a threat. You don't have to verify that an attacker is armed to defend yourself, he claims he felt his life was in danger and that was enough.

I also disagree with your assessment that the 10 women on the jury would side against the defendant. All the defense would have to do is play the "what if you were home alone and a drunk young man entered your home?" card and they would be easily swayed.

Also, don't take his "fumbled with the gun and it went off" statement out of context. That does not necessarily mean he didn't intend to shoot the intruder, and since he fired five rounds at him I am pretty sure that was his intent.

Lastly, just because the alleged intruder died in the street doesn't mean that is where he was shot.

I am not trying to defend this man's actions, but you are using the little bits and pieces of information being passed by the media to judge this case, and I am pretty sure there's a lot more evidence that the jury is seeing that we aren't privy to.

Trust in the judicial system to do its job, it has a pretty good track record of doing so!

Cheers! M2

 

[SiscoKid]

Wow!!! I'm right of Genghis Khan but even this one I might rule against the homeowner. Unless I KNEW something was missing from my home, I would try to stop the guy with a "Halt!!! Or I will Shoot"!!!

Then I doubt very seriously that I would really shoot, if he was truly running away.

 

[cuate]

This morning's Star Telegram reported the Judge declared a mistrial. Seems a jurer researched murder vs. manslaughter and it created what led to the mistrial.
The Prosecution intends to retry the case they say....

 

[majormadmax]

Of course that trail had to be referenced in the article on a completely different and unrelated shooting...

Resident Shoots Alleged Car Burglar

Three men allegedly attempting to burglarize a vehicle were surprised by the owner, who shot one of them following an early morning confrontation, police said.​

The incident comes less than 8 hours after a mistrial was declared in a Bexar County case in which a man is accused of shooting and killing a man he chased out of his home.​

...​

Thursday, police were called to the 2900 block of West Commerce shortly after 1 a.m. after they were told that a homeowner caught suspected burglars attempting to break into his Ford pick up truck.

Investigators said the resident, who was not named and is not likely to be charged, heard noises outside his home and shot one of three men he confronted on the street.

Police said the injured man sustained three bullet wounds and was taken to University Hospital for treatment. The suspect was not believed to have sustained life-threatening injuries.​

He and his two companions faced burglary charges after police found what they suspect was stolen property from other heists in the men's vehicle. (Full Story)​

Cheers! M2

 

[txinvestigator]

First, it doesn't matter if the door was locked or not; if he illegally gained entry into the residence and the homeowner felt he was a threat, then he had the right to defend himself.

That statement is not exactly true as "feeling threatened" is never a justification. However, there is too much unknown to us about the case to accurately decide what happened.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the assailant was armed or not, if the homeowner felt he posted a threat then he was a threat. You don't have to verify that an attacker is armed to defend yourself, he claims he felt his life was in danger and that was enough.

That is not what chapter 9 justifies. Deadly force, in portection of persons, is justified against another to prevent the other's use or intended use of unlawful deadly force against you, or to prevent the imminent commission of Burglary, Robbery, Aggravated Robbery, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping or murder. Now, while the guy is IN your house it could easily be argued that you reasonably believed that you were preventing the imminent commision of on of those acts. But not when he is "running away from your house".

Lastly, just because the alleged intruder died in the street doesn't mean that is where he was shot.

According to the article, that is exactly where he was shot.

I am not trying to defend this man's actions, but you are using the little bits and pieces of information being passed by the media to judge this case, and I am pretty sure there's a lot more evidence that the jury is seeing that we aren't privy to.

Agree 100%

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Did this happen at night.....did he take anything with him when he left?
If both of the above happened, it "could" be a legal shoot with him running away.......