CCA

Court of Criminal AppealsJordan v. State

No. PD-0899-18           2/5/20

Issue:

Is a defendant entitled to a jury instruction on multiple assailants when the evidence demonstrated that others, who were not the aggressors in their own right, were acting together with the victim?

Holding (Keel, J.):

Yes. The Court held that the defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on multiple assailants, and the failure to include it was harmful. A self-defense instruction on multiple assailants does not require evidence that each person defended against was an aggressor in his own right; it requires evidence that the defendant had a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury from a group of people acting together. Because the evidence demonstrated that the defendant had a reasonable apprehension of apparent danger from multiple assailants, he was entitled to the instruction. Read Opinion.

Dissenting (Keasler, J.):

“Because [the defendant] did not admit to harboring the requisite culpable mental state for the particular deadly-conduct offense with which he was charged, I do not think he was entitled to a multiple-assailants self-defense instruction. Therefore, I dissent to the Court’s holding that he was.” Read Opinion.

Dissenting (Yeary, J. joined by Keller, P.J.):

“I would remand this cause, not to the trial court for further proceedings, as the Court does today, but to the court of appeals. I would leave it to the court of appeals in the first instance to decide on remand whether the lack of a multiple-assailants instruction was harmful. Should the court of appeals decide that it was harmful, then it would, as this Court does today, remand it to the trial court. But should it decide it was harmless, that court would then be obliged to determine whether any of [the defendant]’s other complaints about the self-defense instruction are meritorious.”