Chase v. Texas

While out walking their dogs, ten-year-old Maka and a puppy, a neighbor's pit bull got loose and charged appellant and his wife. Frightened for the dogs, appellant's wife grabbed the puppy and ran for safety. Maka was not so lucky: the pit bull grabbed ahold of its neck and shook it. Appellant managed to separate Maka and the pit bull, but not before Maka received serious injury. A neighbor from a different house heard the commotion and came to appellant's aid. The pit bull bit both men as they tried to restrain the animal. Appellant took Maka home, and returned to the scene of the attack with a rope. Appellant looped the rope around the pit bull's neck, dragged the dog to his home, tied the dog to the bumper of one of his cars, then slashed the dog's throat with a knife. He was subsequently charged with cruelty to non-livestock. During a pretrial hearing, defense counsel explained that the defense would seek to rely upon section 822.013 of the Texas Health and Safety Code as authorizing appellant’s conduct: “[W]e think that provision in the law provides a[n] absolute authorization under the facts of this case for the defendant to do what he did.” Granting the State’s motion in limine, the trial judge restricted the parties from referring to the Health and Safety Code provision. At the conclusion of testimony, defendant asked for a jury instruction based on 822.013, which was ultimately denied. Appellant was convicted, and received a year of jail time. That sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation. On appeal, appellant complained that the trial judge erred in refusing to submit a defensive instruction based on 822.013. The court of appeals agreed that the trial court erred and reversed. After its review, the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the court of appeals, and affirmed the reversal of appellant's conviction and the remand for further proceedings. View "Chase v. Texas" on Justia Law