TX CPJC 36-5 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of One’s Own Personal Property—Recovering Property

TX CPJC 36-5 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of One’s Own Personal Property—Recovering Property

State: Texas

Criminal Pattern Jury Charges (Criminal Defenses) (2015)
Chapter 36. Defense of Property
CPJC 36-5 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of One’s Own Personal Property—Recovering Property

[Insert instructions for underlying offense.]

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the [number] elements listed above, you must next consider whether the defendant’s use of force was made in defense of property.

Defense of One’s Own Property

You have heard evidence that, when the defendant [insert specific conduct constituting offense], he believed his use of force was necessary to recover property of which he had been unlawfully dispossessed.

Relevant Statutes

A person’s use of force against another that would otherwise constitute the crime of [offense] is not a criminal offense if—

1. the person reasonably believed he had been unlawfully dispossessed of tangible, movable property by another;

2. the person reasonably believed the force used was immediately necessary to recover the property;

3. the person used the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession; and

4. either—

a. the person reasonably believed the other person had no claim of right when the other person dispossessed the person of the property; or

b. the other person accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the person.

Burden of Proof

The defendant is not required to prove that defense of property applies to this case. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defense of property does not apply to the defendant’s conduct.

Definition

Reasonable Belief

“Reasonable belief” means a belief that an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.

Application of Law to Facts

If you have found that the state has proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must next decide whether the state has proved that the defendant’s conduct was not justified by defense of property.

To decide the issue of defense of property, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of the following elements. The elements are that—

1. the defendant did not reasonably believe he had been unlawfully dispossessed of tangible, movable property, specifically [specify property], by [name]; or

2. the defendant did not reasonably believe the force used was immediately necessary to recover the property; or

3. the defendant did not use the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession; or

4. either—

a. the defendant did not reasonably believe [name] had no claim of right when [name] dispossessed the defendant of the property; or

b. [name] did not accomplish the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the defendant.

You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1, 2, 3, or 4 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1, 2, 3, or 4 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of [insert specific offense], and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1, 2, 3, or 4 listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge, in Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges—General, Evidentiary & Ancillary Instructions.]

By | 2017-12-10T13:06:54+00:00 December 10th, 2017|Comments Off on TX CPJC 36-5 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of One’s Own Personal Property—Recovering Property