Chase, Ryan Francis
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1879
Tex. Crim. App.2014Background
- Defendant killed a dog that attacked a domestic animal; trial for cruelty to non-livestock animals under §42.092(b)(6)
- Defense sought to rely on Health & Safety Code §822.013 to justify killing the attacking dog; defense argued it authorized conduct and could be a defense to criminal liability.
- The trial court denied a §822.013 defense instruction; defense preserved imperfection via objections and testimony; appellate court reversed and remanded for trial consistency.
- Statutory history shows §822.013 evolved from local-option to statewide, with mixed civil/criminal implications; majority holds §822.013(a) provides a defense to criminal prosecution and can be invoked in a §42.092 proceeding.
- Court analyzes preservation rules (Articles 36.14/36.15), §1.03(b) interaction with non-Penal-Code defenses, and §822.013 text/history to determine whether it creates a general criminal defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §822.013(a) provide a defense to criminal prosecution? | State contends §822.013 is civil only; no criminal defense. | Appellant argues §822.013 grants criminal justification. | Ambiguous; statute may provide defense; majority affirms defense available. |
| Is preservation proper under Articles 36.14/36.15 for a non-Penal-Code defense? | State says preservation required Article 36.15 written request. | Defense preserved via objections and prior §822.013 discussions. | Preservation proper under either article; defense error preserved. |
| Does §1.03(b) bar non-Penal-Code defenses to Penal-Code offenses? | State asserts no cross-application of non-Penal-Code defenses. | Statute does not automatically bar non-Penal-Code defenses. | Negative-implication canon applies narrowly; §1.03(b) does not bar §822.013. |
| What is the statutory nature of §822.013—civil, criminal, or both? | State argues civil; no criminal defense. | Statutory text/history show potential criminal defense. | Ambiguous; §822.013(a) can function as criminal-defense, not limited to civil. |
| Does §822.013(a) defeat the cruelty offense under §42.092(b)(6)? | Civil exemption could immunize damages but not criminal liability. | §822.013(a) extends to criminal defense to killing the attacking dog. | Yes; §822.013(a) provides a defense to criminal prosecution in §42.092 cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volosen v. State, 227 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (addressed the scope of §822.013/§822.033 as a defense; local vs statewide applicability)
- Ex parte Schroeter, 958 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (review of historical defense constructions in statutory context)
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defensive issue must be requested/submitted to be law applicable)
- Volosen (concurrence note), - (-) (cited in context of defense availability (textual discussion))