Penal Code Help Please

[Medic218]

Can someone show me the penal code that says if you are no-billed in a justified shoot you can not be held civilly liable.
Thanks!

 

[Medic218]

Nevermind, I found it.
Sec 83.001 of the civil law, not penal code.

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

 

[txinvestigator]

Nevermind, I found it.
Sec 83.001 of the civil law, not penal code.

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

As you see, that is not in the penal code, and it does not mean if you are no billed you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

 

[txinvestigator]

The OP asked for clarification;

Civil Immunity is found in the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, a section called "Liability in a Tort". A Tort is a civil case. Notice the first two words of 83.001, "A defendant". A defendant in a civil suit is one who has been sued. The term defendant here does not refer to someone in a criminal case.

Nowhere in 83.001 does it state that if a person is no-billed he is immune. It tells us that a person who was justified is immune. Who determines justification in a civil suit? The civil court will. A civil court is not bound by ANY decision of a criminal court. Even the criminal law, in chapter 9 of the Penal Code tells us that.

" Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit."



Also consider what a grand jury no-bill is; All you know with a no-bill is that the grand jury did not find probable cause to try to person for a crime. It does not mean that the GJ believed the person was justified. It could, but we have no way of knowing. A civil court would not know either.

The civil court hearing the case will determine if the person was justified. If it determines the person was justified, then 83.001 requires that the person not be liable.

Hope this helps.

 

[Medic218]

So basically...you shoot, get no-billed or not charged, get sued civilly and at that point they determine justifiably and possible civil immunity.
correct?

 

[txinvestigator]

So basically...you shoot, get no-billed or not charged, get sued civilly and at that point they determine justifiably and possible civil immunity.
correct?

If you are sued as a result of your actions, the civil court will determine justification for the purposes of immunity. Certainly, they can consider the grand jury decision, but they are not bound to it.

 

[Acera]

It sounds like if you shoot, get charged, tried, and found not guilty you are in better shape to deal with a civil lawsuit/trial.

Not having that criminal trial not guilty verdict opens the door for a civil trial where the burden of proof is lesser, and your chances for a negative judgement are greater.

Please correct me, I hope this is not the case.

(Last thing I would want is to beg and plead for a criminal trial so I could be found not guilty, and avoid the chance of a disastrous civil suit judgement.)

 

[txinvestigator]

It sounds like if you shoot, get charged, tried, and found not guilty you are in better shape to deal with a civil lawsuit/trial.

Most likely.

Not having that criminal trial not guilty verdict opens the door for a civil trial where the burden of proof is lesser, and your chances for a negative judgement are greater.

Failing to have a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial does not open any doors. The door is open regardless.

(Last thing I would want is to beg and plead for a criminal trial so I could be found not guilty, and avoid the chance of a disastrous civil suit judgement.)

The criminal and civil systems are separate.

 

[Acera]

The criminal and civil systems are separate.

OK, now I understand (I think).

I once thought the intent was if you are innocent of using deadly force in an unlawful manner, you were protected from a civil liability lawsuit. It is just a defence you will use in your civil trial, but not grounds for dismissal of a civil lawsuit following a not guilty criminal trial verdict. Right?

Is the bottom line you may end up facing trials in both courts, and could be found guilty or innocent in either, both, or one and not the other, independent of the ruling of the other court???

So the law only applies in civil cases, where they will be tried on their own merits, independent of a criminal case. The results of the criminal case can be used by either party to gain some advantage in the civil trial. Right?

Since the burden of proof is higher in a criminal trial, which means it's easier to get off? I think I see an OJ thing here, win in criminal court, but you could lose in civil.

 

[txinvestigator]

OK, now I understand (I think).

I once thought the intent was if you are innocent of using deadly force in an unlawful manner, you were protected from a civil liability lawsuit. It is just a defence you will use in your civil trial, but not grounds for dismissal of a civil lawsuit following a not guilty criminal trial verdict. Right?

Remember that even a "not guilty" verdict does not necessarily means that you were justified. All a not guilty verdict means is that the prosecution did not prove the offense beyond any and all reasonable doubt.

Is the bottom line you may end up facing trials in both courts, and could be found guilty or innocent in either, both, or one and not the other, independent of the ruling of the other court???

That is correct. Except there is no innocent or guilty in civil. It is a measure of liability.

So the law only applies in civil cases, where they will be tried on their own merits, independent of a criminal case. The results of the criminal case can be used by either party to gain some advantage in the civil trial. Right?

Yes. Chapter 9 of the penal code gives you a defense to prosecution for otherwise unlawful behavior in a criminal prosecution. In civil law. even behavior that is not unlawful, or that is justified, does not mean there is no civil liability available. The Castle Doctrine made the change to the civil code, 83.001, to give immunity if the civil court determines you were justified under chapter 9. In a suit of liability for use of force or deadly force, the first thing the court has to consider is chapter 9 justification. If the court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you were justified then they can assign no liability.

 

[Rum Runner]

An example we are all familiar with comes to mind. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder, yet he lost the civil suit and was on the hook for tens of millions.

I know it isnt quite what we are talking about here, but it illustrates the separation of criminal vs civil verdicts.

Thanks for the clarification TXI.