Ryan Francis Chase v. State, 418 S.W.3d 296

While walking two dogs, Chase's dog was attacked by neighbors' dogs; Chase later returned with a rope and a knife, bound one dog and slashed its throat, killing it.
Chase was charged with cruelty to nonlivestock animals under Tex. Penal Code § 42.092(b)(2); jury convicted and trial court sentenced him to 365 days (suspended) with 12 months community supervision.
Chase requested a jury instruction based on Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.013 (authorizing killing a dog attacking livestock or domestic animals) as a defense; the trial court previously granted a motion in limine precluding discussion of § 822.013 and refused the requested charge.
The State argued on appeal that Chase failed to preserve the charge objection under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.14 and that § 822.013 is not a criminal defense or inapplicable.
The court of appeals held Chase preserved the objection, concluded § 822.013 can operate as a defense to a cruelty-to-animals prosecution in appropriate circumstances, found the omission harmful given the evidence, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on Health & Safety § 822.013 as a defense to cruelty-to-animals	State: Chase failed to preserve error under art. 36.14; § 822.013 is not a criminal defense/applicable only in civil context	Chase: He objected to the charge and preserved error; § 822.013 authorizes killing a dog attacking domestic animals and can excuse criminal liability	Court: Objection preserved; § 822.013 may operate as a defense to § 42.092 in appropriate circumstances; omission was harmful given the trial record — conviction reversed and remanded

Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (art. 36.14 objection requirement explained)
Loun v. State, 273 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (objection and preservation principles)
Starks v. State, 127 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (sufficiency of objection judged by whether it alerted court to issue)
Rue v. State, 288 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (preservation when judge understood appellant's request)
Volosen v. State, 192 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (predecessor statute could excuse cruelty-to-animals liability)
Volosen v. State, 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reversed on other grounds but acknowledged predecessor statute as a defense)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for harm from charge error)
Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (assessing harm by reference to record and arguments)
Vasquez v. State, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (distinction between art. 36.14 and art. 36.15)
Pena v. State, 191 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (caution against unnecessary constitutional adjudication)