Breeding v. StateBreeding v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Poff
Appellant, Leslie Lynn Breeding, was charged and tried for violating
In appellant’s points of error one through five, he alleges that the Trial Court erred in excluding portions of his own testimоny, the testimony of other protesters (1-3) and the testimony of Dr. John Quigley (4) and Dr. Ved Nanda (5). In point of error six (6), appellant argues that the Trial Court erred in failing to include the defensive instruction concerning justification of public duty. We will overrule the points of error and affirm thе judgment of the Trial Court.
The Carson County Sheriffs Department was notified that appellant and others intended to protest the production of nuclear weapons at the Pantex Plant in Carson County. After the protesters kneeled in the roadway in front of Pantex’s gatе, the Sheriff warned them that they would be arrested if they failed to move from the roadway which was the main entrance to the plant. The protesters maintained their position obstructing the entrance to the plant. Consequently, law enforcement personnel аrrested the protesters and forcibly removed them from the roadway.
At trial, appellant contended that he was legally justified in blocking the roadway due to his purported reasonable belief that such action was necessary to comply with the Nuremberg Prinсiples. 1 He contended at trial and reasserts on appeal that such principles are binding upon the United States as a ratified treaty, and binding on the States due to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The testimony that appellant allegеs was wrongfully excluded by the Trial Court, evidenced by several bills of exception, consists of his belief, the beliefs of other protesters and the expert testimony of Quigley and Nanda as to the Nuremberg Principles.
In points of error one (1) through five (5), appellant allеges that the Trial Court’s exclusion of the evidence violated
*663
his rights to due process and course of law under the fifth and fourteenth аmendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Exclusion of evidence does not result in reversible error unless to do so affects a substantial right of the accused.
See
Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 103(a);
An abuse of discretion will be found only if the Trial Court acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules and prinсiples. See generally, Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986). See also, Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 378 (Tex.Crim.App.1990, en banc) (motion for rehearing granted). While not specifically disclosed by the record, the State objected to introduction of the “Nuremberg” testimony on grounds оf a lack of materiality, relevance and legal foundation. A determination of relevance must be guided by Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 401 which requires that thе proffered evidence tends to render a contested material issue more or less probable. Garza v. State, 715 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex.Crim.App.1986, en banc).
Appellant’s theory at trial was based upon the justification defense of public duty.
It is not error for a judge to exclude evidence which fails to show that a defendant is entitled to the defense to which it аpplies. Reed v. State, 794 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. refd.). In order to show that appellant was entitled to submission of the public duty defense, the excluded testimony must show that he met all the elements of the defense. Brumley v. State, 804 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1991, no pet. h.). See also, Reed, supra.
Applying these principles to the instant case, appellant’s bills of exception must demоnstrate that he:
• reasonably believed; and
• that his conduct was required by law.
Appellant has cited no case, and after a diligent search, this Court has found no case holding that we are bound by the Nurеmberg Principles. Even assuming ar-guendo that this State is bound by those principles, appellant’s acts of defiance (to show noncomplicity) would be required by that “law” only if the Pantex operations were in violation of the principles. Appel *664 lant’s own expert testified, in the bill of exceptions, that no court in the United States has held that production of nuclear weapons violates the Nuremberg Principles. In the absence of authority to the contrary, we conclude that production of nuclear weapons does not give rise to a duty to protest sufficient to entitle appellant to the defense of public duty.
We find that appellant did not show thаt the evidence tended to render either of the elements of his proposed defensive position more or less probable. Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 401. Consequently, the evidence was not relevant and no abuse of discretion is shown. Thus, the exclusion of the evidence did not affect a substantial right of the accused, and the Trial Court’s ruling was not in error. Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 103. We overrule points of error one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4) and five (5).
Having shown neither of the elements of the public duty defense, appellant was not entitled to submission of the defensive instruction concerning justification of public duty as argued in point of error six (6). See Sanders v. State, 707 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tex.Crim.App.1986, en banc); Brumley, supra. Consequently, the Trial Court did not err in failing to instruct the jury as requested by apрellant. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sixth point of error.
Having overruled each of appellant’s points of error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Notes
. Principles of international law recognized in the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.