Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.21 – Public Duty Explained by a Houston Criminal Lawyer

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.21 – Public Duty Explained by a Houston Criminal Lawyer

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.21 – Public Duty Explained by a Houston Criminal Lawyer

When someone is accused of a crime in Texas, one of the possible defenses is that their actions were legally justified under the Public Duty provision of the Texas Penal Code. As a Houston Criminal Lawyer, I often see this defense raised in cases involving law enforcement, court orders, or situations where a person was helping a public servant carry out their duties.

What Does “Public Duty” Mean in Texas?

Under Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.21, a person’s conduct is justified if they reasonably believe their actions were required or authorized by:

• A law or statute

• A judgment or order from a competent court

• A governmental tribunal or in carrying out a legal process

In simpler terms, if you were following a valid legal order or helping enforce the law, you may have a defense against criminal charges.

Limits on the Public Duty Defense

Subsection (b) makes it clear that when force is used against another person, other parts of the Penal Code apply—such as the laws for protecting people, protecting property, law enforcement authority, or certain special relationships. This means you can’t automatically claim public duty in situations involving force without meeting those additional requirements.

Deadly Force Under Public Duty

Deadly force has an even higher standard. Under subsection (c), deadly force is only justified if:

• It is specifically required by law, or

• It occurs in the lawful conduct of war

  
  

If deadly force is justified under these conditions, there is no legal duty to retreat before using it.

Reasonable Belief and Authority

Subsection (d) protects individuals who act under a reasonable belief that a court or governmental body had the authority to issue an order—even if it turns out they were mistaken. It also covers those who assist public servants in their duties, even if the public servant ends up exceeding their lawful authority.

Real-World Example

Imagine a sheriff’s deputy asks a private citizen to help control a disruptive crowd during an official court proceeding. If that citizen uses reasonable force to help, and later someone claims it was assault, the Public Duty defense could apply—especially if the person genuinely believed they were helping carry out an official order.

Why You Should Talk to a Houston Criminal Lawyer

If you’ve been charged with a crime but believe your actions were authorized by law or a court order, you need an attorney who understands how to present a Public Duty defense. A skilled Houston Criminal Lawyer can analyze whether your belief was reasonable under the law, gather evidence to support your position, and challenge the prosecution’s case effectively.

Bottom line: Texas law recognizes that following lawful orders or helping public officials should not automatically lead to a criminal conviction. But successfully raising this defense requires knowledge, preparation, and a clear understanding of Sec. 9.21.

Statute Text:

Sec. 9.21.  PUBLIC DUTY.  

(a)  Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.

(b)  The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).

(c)  The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war.  If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

(d)  The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:

(1)  the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful;  or

(2)  his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.