TX CPCJ 34-2 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of Another
Criminal Pattern Jury Charges (Criminal Defenses) (2015)
Chapter 34. Defense of Others
CPCJ 34-2 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of Another
[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 another person.
Defense of Another Person
You have heard evidence that, when the defendant [insert specific conduct constituting offense], he believed his use of force was necessary to defend [name of third person] from [what the defendant believed was] [name]’s use [or attempted use] of unlawful force against [name of third person].
Relevant Statutes
A person’s use of force against another that would otherwise constitute the crime of [offense] is not a criminal offense if—
[Select one of the following.]
1. the person reasonably believed another was using or attempting to use unlawful force against a third individual;
2. under the circumstances as the person reasonably believed them to be, the third individual would be entitled to defend himself against this unlawful force; and
3. the person reasonably believed that his own use of force against the other was immediately necessary to protect the third individual from the unlawful force.
[or]
[The following formulation is closer to the precise structure and language of the statute. It does, however, reverse the order of the provisions to begin with the focus of the inquiry—the perceived attack on the third individual.]
1. the person reasonably believed that his use of force was immediately necessary to protect a third individual from unlawful force or deadly force; and
2. under the circumstances as the person reasonably believed them to be, the person would be permitted to use force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believed to be threatening the third individual he sought to protect.
[or]
[The following formulation is closest to the precise structure and language of the statute.]
1. under the circumstances as the person reasonably believed them to be, the person would be permitted to use force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believed to be threatening the third person he sought to protect; and
2. the person reasonably believed that his intervention was immediately necessary to protect the third person.
[Continue with the following.]
Whether a person is permitted to use force or deadly force to protect himself against unlawful force is determined by the law of self-defense.
[Insert all applicable aspects of self-defense law, e.g.:
Under the law of self-defense, a person is entitled to use force to defend himself if the person reasonably believes—
1. another was using or attempting to use unlawful force against the person; and
2. the person’s conduct was immediately necessary to protect himself against that force.]
Burden of Proof
The defendant is not required to prove that defense of another applies to this case. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defense of another 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 another.
To decide the issue of defense of another, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following elements. The elements are that—
[Select one of the following.]
1. the defendant did not reasonably believe [name] was using or attempting to use unlawful force against [name of third person]; or
2. under the circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be, [name of third person] would not have been entitled to defend himself against this unlawful force; or
3. the defendant did not reasonably believe that his use of force against the other was immediately necessary to protect [name of third person] from the unlawful force.
[or]
1. the defendant did not believe his conduct was immediately necessary to protect [name of third person] against [name]’s use [or attempted use] of unlawful force; or
2. the defendant’s belief was not reasonable; or
3. under the circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be, the defendant would not have been permitted to use force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force with which the defendant reasonably believed [name] was threatening [name of third person].
[Continue with the following.]
You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1, 2, or 3 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, or 3 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, or 3 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.]
