## Facts

- Broderick Ramone French had a heart condition and a pacemaker that limited his physical ability.
- Eddie Eugene Sloan took French’s hat, with several friends assisting or present during the taking.
- French tried to get the hat back but was outnumbered and physically limited.
- French was afraid of Sloan because Sloan had a reputation for violence.
- After the hat was taken, French went to a nearby car and retrieved a gun.
- French then shot Sloan, killing him.
- French testified that two or three minutes passed between the taking of the hat and the shooting.
- French testified that he believed force was necessary to recover his hat from Sloan and Sloan’s friends.
- French was charged with criminally negligent homicide, convicted, and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing French’s request for a jury instruction on the statutory justification of protection of property.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the evidence did not raise the statutory justification for using deadly force in protection (or recovery) of property so as to require submission of the requested instruction.
- Because the defensive theory was not supported by evidence meeting the statutory requirements, the trial court did not commit reversible error by omitting the instruction.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a requested defensive instruction only when there is some evidence from which a rational jury could find, for each element of the defense, that the defendant’s conduct was justified.
- Texas law distinguishes between (a) force to protect or recover property and (b) deadly force to protect or recover property; deadly force is permitted only in narrowly limited situations and only when statutory conditions are satisfied.
- For deadly force in defense of property, the defendant must present evidence that he reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary under the circumstances, and that the additional statutory limitations on deadly force to protect or recover property were met.
- A lapse of time between the property taking and the use of deadly force, combined with the defendant’s withdrawal to obtain a weapon, can defeat the “immediate necessity” component required for deadly force.
- Evidence that the decedent had a violent reputation, without evidence of an immediate statutory basis for deadly force at the moment it was used, does not by itself require a protection-of-property instruction.

## Conclusion

French v. State held that French was not entitled to a jury charge on protection of property where, after his hat was taken by Sloan and others, he broke away, retrieved a gun from a nearby car, and returned to shoot Sloan after a brief interval; on that record, the court concluded the evidence did not support the statutory requirements for deadly force to protect or recover property, so the trial court’s refusal to include the requested instruction was not error and the criminally negligent homicide conviction was affirmed.


French v. State, 1990 WL 28976 (1990)