Page 73 - March April 2020 TPA

The training materials on the Fourth Amendment injurious effect or influence in determining the
that were admitted during the trial did not address jury’s verdict.”
this type of fact situation. Even if the materials had Neither Jordan nor Wise has shown any reversible
addressed this situation, that information would not error, and their convictions and sentences are
have been sufficient to demonstrate beyond a AFFIRMED.
reasonable doubt that Ross knew that her conduct U. S. v. Jordan, Wise. No. 18-20564, 5 th Cir.,
was unlawful.
th
Dec. 13 , 2019.
Given the amount of blood on the mattress and
walls, the condition of the home, the information
Ross had regarding the history of drug use, the lack
EVIDENCE. SELF DEFENSE
of medical care to the child who was evidently just
recently born in the home, the prior criminal and
A jury convicted Appellant of deadly conduct and
CPS history surrounding Hunt, and given the fact
sentenced him to four years in
that there was no indication where the baby might
prison. He claims the trial court erred in denying
be and whether the baby was alive or dead, it is
him a jury instruction on self-defense against
possible that abuse and neglect took place
multiple assailants. The court of appeals concluded
throughout the entire home. Under these facts, we
that Appellant was not entitled to a self-defense
hold that no rational trier of fact could find the
instruction at all, and the failure to include multiple
essential elements of the offense of official
assailants language was not error. We disagree and
oppression beyond a reasonable doubt, because the
hold that Appellant was entitled to a jury
State presented insufficient evidence that Ross
instruction on multiple assailants, and the failure
knew, under these circumstances, that her conduct
to include it was harmful. We remand the case to
was unlawful. We reverse the judgment of the court
the trial court for further proceedings.
of appeals against Ross and render a judgment of
A person is justified in using force against another
acquittal.
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
Ross v. State, No. PD-0001-17, Tex. Ct. of Crim.
force is immediately necessary to protect against
Appeals, Mar. 18, 2018.
the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.
****************************************
TEX. PENAL CODE § 9.31(a). A person is
***************************************
justified in using deadly force against another if he
If the district court erred in admitting testimony
would be justified in using force, and he
that Jordan and Wise are brothers, the error was
reasonably believes deadly force is immediately
harmless.
necessary to protect himself against the other’s use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. TEX.
We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of
PENAL CODE § 9.32(a). The evidence does not
discretion, subject to the harmless error rule.18 An
have to show that the victim was actually using or
abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling is
attempting to use unlawful deadly force because a
grounded in a legal error or based on a clearly
person has the right to defend himself from
erroneous analysis of the evidence.19 But even if
apparent danger as he reasonably apprehends it.
such an error occurs, we will not reverse if the
Self-defense is a confession-and-avoidance
guilty verdict was unattributable to the error—the
defense requiring the defendant to admit to his
harmless error rule.
otherwise illegal conduct. He cannot both invoke
. . .
self-defense and flatly deny the charged conduct.
As the Government notes, the testimony was
Regardless of the strength or credibility of the
harmless because it did not have a “substantial and
evidence, a defendant is entitled to
66 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal