What Are the Justification of Self Defense In Texas Law ?
A person is justified in using force against another when he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use of unlawful force. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. 9.31(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000).
However, the use of force against another is not justified if the actor provoked the use of force, unless the actor clearly communicates his intent to abandon the encounter and the other persists in the use of unlawful force. Id. at 9.31(b)(4).
In order for an appellate court to hold that self-defense was established as a matter of law, the testimony must be uncontradicted, with no issue for the fact finder's determination. Whitfield v. State, 492 S.W.2d 502, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Williams v. State, 710 S.W.2d 828, 829 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1986, pet. ref'd).
We ask first whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; then we ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found at least one of the essential elements of self-defense disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. Collins v. State, 754 S.W.2d 818, 821 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd).
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979).
The sufficiency of the evidence is measured against the offense defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App.1997).
Such a charge would include one that "accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restricts the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant is tried." Id.