Rodriguez v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 388
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- State filed a motion for rehearing after original opinion and judgment.
- State argued Appellant was not entitled to a section 9.42 defense of property instruction because he did not admit to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury.
- Appellant admitted conduct constituting assault under Tex. Penal Code §22.01 and invoked a property justification defense under §9.42.
- Court explains the nature of a section 9.42 defense as confession-and-avoidance within a statutory justification.
- Court reiterates that the admission of conduct suffices to warrant the statutory justification defense submission, even if the element of serious bodily injury is not admitted.
- Conclusion: State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant was entitled to a §9.42 defense instruction | State: no entitlement since Appellant did not admit the serious bodily injury element | Appellant: admitted conduct supports the defense under law of parties | Overruled; instruction warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (confession-and-avoidance applies to §9.42 defense)
- Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (conduct and mental state required for confession-and-avoidance)
- Cornet v. State, 359 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (nature of conduct governs availability of statutory defenses)
- Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (non-statutory defenses that negate an element are improper)
- Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (non-statutory defense of 'independent impulse' not allowed where covered)
- Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (evidence negating State’s offense does not entitle to non-statutory alibi)