Ron Devor Barrett v. State, 12-16-00289-CR

On Oct. 16, 2015, Tiffany Pinkerton damaged Ron Barrett’s Suburban with a combination axe/sledgehammer; Barrett disarmed her and a physical struggle followed.
Witnesses described Barrett pursuing, kicking, punching, and choking Pinkerton after the initial struggle; Pinkerton sustained a deep gash to her forehead.
Barrett did not testify at trial; his defense theory was that Pinkerton’s injuries were accidental from the axe during the struggle and that he did not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly strike her with his hands.
Barrett was charged by information with misdemeanor assault-family-violence for causing bodily injury by striking Pinkerton with his hands; the jury convicted and sentenced him to six months’ county jail and a fine.
At the charge conference, defense requested jury instructions on self-defense and defense of property; the trial court refused. Barrett preserved his objections for appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Barrett)	Held
Whether Barrett was entitled to self-defense instruction	Barrett denied the act alleged (striking with hands), so confession-and-avoidance not met; no instruction required	Barrett argued defensive instruction warranted despite dispute over manner/means of injury	Trial court correctly refused self-defense instruction because defendant did not admit the charged act or culpable mental state
Whether Barrett was entitled to defense-of-property instruction	Same: defendant denied committing the alleged act so justification defense not available	Barrett argued defense of property applied to his response to property damage	Trial court correctly refused defense-of-property instruction for same confession-and-avoidance reason
Whether charge error occurred and, if so, the standard of review	No charge error because defensive issues not raised by evidence; therefore no harm analysis required	Barrett preserved objections and argued any error harmed him; sought reversal	Court treats errors as not present; thus no harm analysis and no reversal required
Whether appellate preservation was adequate	State concedes objections were preserved (dictated at charge conference)	Barrett relied on preservation to obtain Almanza review	Preservation found adequate; but substantive entitlement to instructions still lacking

Ex parte Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (confession-and-avoidance doctrine requires admission of the charged act and mens rea before defensive instruction is warranted)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing courts first ask whether charge error exists; harm analysis follows only if error exists)
Kunkle v. State, 771 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (no error when evidence fails to raise defensive issue)
Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (defendant must admit act and mens rea to obtain justification instruction)
Clifton v. State, 21 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (defendant bears burden to come forward with evidence raising self-defense)
Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (elements for entitlement to defensive jury charge)
Holloman v. State, 948 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997) (distinguished: defendant there admitted to striking victim, so defensive charge appropriate)
Rodriguez v. State, 392 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013) (defense-of-property is also a confession-and-avoidance type defense)