593 S.W.3d 340
Tex. Crim. App.2020Background
- Patrick Jordan fired three shots after being confronted at a restaurant by a group that included Jordan Royal, Summer Varley, Austin Crumpton, Damon Prichard, and Joshua Stevenson; one shot hit Royal (leg) and another hit Varley (chest).
- Jordan and his friend were chased and Bryan (the friend) was knocked unconscious by Royal; Jordan testified he was grabbed and jumped on while others approached.
- Jordan admitted to firing and was charged with aggravated assault (against Royal) and deadly conduct (discharging a firearm in the direction of Varley and Crumpton).
- The trial court gave a self-defense instruction tied only to Royal’s conduct and declined Jordan’s requested language covering “Royal or others”; the jury convicted Jordan of deadly conduct but hung on aggravated assault.
- The court of appeals held Jordan was not entitled to a multiple-assailants self-defense instruction; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the multiple-assailants instruction was required and the omission was harmful, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jordan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was entitled to a multiple-assailants self-defense instruction | No — instruction on Royal alone was sufficient and evidence did not require treating others as assailants in their own right | Yes — evidence viewed from defendant’s standpoint showed a group attack/mob and raised multiple-assailants defense | Entitled — evidence supported reasonable fear from a group; instruction excluding “or others” was error |
| Whether charge error was preserved | Error not preserved because written charge referenced multiple assailants only for defense of a third person | Preserved — at charge conference the request was understood to apply to self-defense and defense of others | Preserved — trial court understood request; review for “some harm” applies |
| Whether omission of multiple-assailants language caused reversible harm | Any error did not prejudice because jury had self-defense instruction | Omission foreclosed fair consideration of defense regarding shots at Varley and Crumpton; it made rejection of self-defense inevitable | Harmful — omission caused actual harm; reversal and remand required |
| SPA’s confession-and-avoidance / statutory-language argument (i.e., defendant didn’t admit shooting at others; Penal Code uses singular “another”) | Jordan failed confession-and-avoidance for those victims and statute refers to singular actor; thus multiple-assailants instruction not warranted | Penal Code definitions cover “another”/“others”; Jordan admitted firing and the defense is about reasonable apprehension of danger from a group | Rejected — confession-and-avoidance satisfied; statutory grammar does not preclude group-based self-defense instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (a defendant may defend against apparent danger; standard for self-defense instruction)
- Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (self-defense is a confession-and-avoidance defense; defendant must admit the conduct)
- Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (when evidence shows attack by more than one assailant, defendant is entitled to multiple-assailants instruction)
- Black v. State, 145 S.W. 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912) (persons aiding or encouraging an aggressor may be treated as assailants for self-defense)
- Sanders v. State, 632 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (multiple-assailants instruction warranted even if deceased did not personally attack the defendant)
- Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (defensive issue must be submitted if some evidence, viewed in defendant’s favor, supports each element)
- Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defensive issue considered raised when sufficient evidence supports rational jury finding)
- Dickey v. State, 22 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (when attack is by multiple persons acting together, defendant may use force against any member of the group)
- Francis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (preservation of charge error when trial court understood the request)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for harm review of jury-charge error)
- Cornet v. State, 417 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ("some harm" requires actual harm; assess whole record for prejudice)