Houston Assault Attorney - Texas Penal Code 9.31 Self-Defense

Visit us at www.houstoncriminaldefenseattorneyspllc.com

Houston Assault Attorney - Texas Penal Code 9.31 Self-Defense

Houston Assault Attorney - Texas Penal Code 9.31 Self-Defense

In Texas, self-defense is not simply a moral right — it is a legally recognized justification that, when properly raised and proven, can absolve someone of criminal liability. However, self-defense is not a “get out of jail free” card. As any experienced Houston assault lawyer will tell you, the right to defend yourself under Texas law depends entirely on the circumstances and whether your actions meet very specific legal standards.

This article breaks down Texas Penal Code Section 9.31, which governs the use of non-deadly force in self-defense, and explains how this statute applies in real-world situations, particularly in criminal cases involving assault charges.

The General Rule: Reasonable Belief of Immediate Necessity

Texas Penal Code § 9.31(a) provides that a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree they reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to protect themselves against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.

That phrase — “reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary” — is the foundation of all self-defense claims in Texas. It introduces both a subjective and objective test. You must have genuinely believed you needed to act to protect yourself (subjective), and your belief must be one that a reasonable person in your shoes would also have held (objective).

Legal Presumptions That Favor the Defendant

Section 9.31 also outlines specific circumstances under which your belief in the necessity of force is presumed to be reasonable. These presumptions offer a powerful legal advantage when raised correctly in court.

If, for example, someone unlawfully and forcefully entered your home or vehicle, or attempted to remove you from it, the law presumes you acted reasonably in defending yourself — so long as you were not the initial aggressor and you were not engaged in criminal activity at the time.

Let’s apply this to a common situation: Suppose you're asleep in your apartment and wake up to the sound of someone prying open your window. You yell out. The intruder enters anyway. You strike them with an object as they come toward you. Under § 9.31(a)(1)(A), your use of force would likely be presumed reasonable, provided you did not provoke the encounter and were not committing a crime.

The Limits of Self-Defense

Not every altercation permits a self-defense claim. Texas law is clear about situations where the use of force is not justified.

For example:

• You cannot claim self-defense in response to words alone, no matter how insulting or threatening they may be.

• You are not justified in using force to resist an arrest, even an unlawful one, unless the arresting officer uses greater force than necessary.

• You cannot consent to a fight and then claim self-defense unless the other person escalates the situation in a way you could not have anticipated.

• If you were the one who provoked the confrontation, you lose the right to claim self-defense — unless you clearly attempted to withdraw and the other person continued to use unlawful force.

  
  

These limitations often arise in bar fights or road rage incidents, where both parties play a role in escalating the conflict. In such cases, the court will examine closely whether the accused truly attempted to disengage and whether the use of force was necessary to prevent further harm.

What About the Duty to Retreat?

Texas is a “stand your ground” state. According to Section 9.31(e), if you are legally present at the location where the force occurs, are not engaged in criminal activity, and did not provoke the confrontation, you are not required to retreat before using force in self-defense.

This is often misunderstood. While you are not required to retreat, that doesn’t give you a license to escalate the situation. The force you use must still be proportionate to the threat you are facing. Courts will assess whether you could have resolved the situation through non-violent means — and whether your response was excessive under the circumstances.

Resisting Arrest: A Narrow Exception

Subsection (c) provides a very limited right to use force against a police officer. If an officer uses more force than necessary during an arrest or search, and you reasonably believe that force is necessary to protect yourself, you may have a valid defense — but this is a dangerous and rarely successful argument.

Let’s say an officer is arresting you for a suspected theft, and you comply. Then, without warning, they slam you to the ground and strike you repeatedly. If you instinctively push them off to protect yourself, that may be justified under the law — but the burden will be on your attorney to prove the officer used excessive force before you resisted. Video evidence, medical records, and eyewitness testimony become critical in these cases.

Final Thoughts: Why Legal Representation Matters

Self-defense cases are fact-intensive and often turn on fine distinctions. The law may be on your side, but without skilled legal representation, you could still be convicted. That’s why, if you’ve been charged with assault and believe you acted in self-defense, you need to speak with an experienced Houston assault lawyer immediately.

At Houston Criminal Defense Attorneys PLLC, we understand the stakes. We know how to present your case to prosecutors and juries, how to raise statutory presumptions in your favor, and how to challenge false accusations and police misconduct. We’ve helped countless clients in the Houston area fight back against criminal charges — and win.

To schedule a confidential consultation, visit us at www.houstoncriminaldefenseattorneyspllc.com or call our office today.

The Statute:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

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; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.