TX CPJC 36-11 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of Third Person’s Personal Property
Criminal Pattern Jury Charges (Criminal Defenses) (2015)
Chapter 36. Defense of Property
CPJC 36-11 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of Third Person’s Personal 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 Property of a Third Person
You have heard evidence that, when the defendant [insert specific conduct constituting offense], he believed his use of force was necessary to defend property of a third person from what the defendant believed was an unlawful interference.
Relevant Statutes
A person’s use of force against another that would otherwise constitute the crime of [offense] is not a criminal offense if the person reasonably believed—
1. the other was unlawfully interfering with the tangible, movable property of a third individual;
2. the other’s unlawful interference with that property constituted attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to that property; and
3. either—
a. the third individual requested his protection of the property; or
b. the person had a legal duty to protect the third individual’s property; or
c. the third individual was the person’s spouse, parent, or child, resided with the person, or was under the person’s care.
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. [name] was not unlawfully interfering with the tangible, movable property of a third individual, specifically [specify property]; or
2. [name]’s unlawful interference with that property did not constitute attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to that property; or
3. either—
a. the third individual did not request the defendant’s protection of the property; or
b. the defendant did not have a legal duty to protect the third individual’s property; or
c. the third individual was not the defendant’s spouse, parent, or child, resided with the defendant, or was under the defendant’s care.
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.]
