Texas-Book-Gun Law Armed And Educated - Flipbook - Page 169
deadly force was immediately necessary. The prosecution would
then have the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that
David did not act in self-defense (i.e., David did not know or have
reason to believe he was about to be murdered). If the jury finds that
the prosecution did not meet this burden of proof, it will decide his
use of deadly force was legally justified.
But how does the self-defense statute work when the example is
not so clear?
EXAMPLE:
Police respond to a two-car collision in a parking lot. When
the police arrive, they discover that the collision has sparked a
shooting. At the scene, one man is dead on the ground with a tire
iron beside him. The other driver, Matt, a 45-year-old man with no
previous criminal record, fired two shots and is now the police’s
prime suspect in a murder investigation. Matt claims that the other
driver became irate while exchanging information, threatened him,
and aggressively came toward him swinging the tire iron. However,
the position of the physical evidence made it unclear as to who was
the true victim in this incident. In fact, one of the officers thinks Matt
is lying. Unfortunately for Matt, there are no other witnesses.
If Matt ultimately faces criminal charges for murder and claims
self-defense at his trial, how does the court determine whether or
not the jury will be told of the legal presumption and, ultimately,
legal justifications under Sections 9.31 and 9.32?
In order to receive the protection of a presumption of
“reasonableness” for victims of crimes under Sections 9.31 and
9.32, Matt has the initial burden of producing some evidence in
158 | CHAPTER EIGHT
