Criminal Pattern Jury Charges (Criminal Defenses) (2015)
Chapter 36. Defense of Property
CPJC 36-4 Instruction—Nondeadly Force in Defense of One’s Own Personal Property—Preventing Interference with Property in One’s Possession

[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 defend property in his possession 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 person was in lawful possession of tangible, movable property;

2. another person was unlawfully interfering with that property; and

3. the force used was immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s unlawful interference with that property.

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 was in lawful possession of tangible, movable property, specifically [specify property]; or

2. the defendant did not reasonably believe [name] was unlawfully interfering with that property; or

3. the defendant did not reasonably believe the force used was immediately necessary to prevent or terminate [name]’s unlawful interference with that property.

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.]