How to Lift a Texas Domestic Violence Emergency Protective Order

This week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released Henley v. State. In a 4-3 decision the divided court held that the defendant was not allowed to offer “defense of a third party” as a legal argument in his assault case, because it “was not material to, nor probative of, any fact that was of consequence to the determination of this action.”

Henley v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

Henley was Charged with Domestic Violence in Tarrant County and Offered a “Defense of Others” Argument at Trial

Mr. Henley was charged with misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury to a family member (domestic violence). Henley was alleged to have pulled his ex-wife out of her car by her hair, punched her in the face several times, and hit her head against the concrete driveway.

At trial, Henley asserted a “defense of others” defense, which is an extension of the traditional self-defense argument. The rationale he provided for this defense was that he did not think his ex-wife was a fit parent because her new husband had sexually and possibly physically assaulted the children. The mother’s new husband was not present during the altercation and did not pose any immediate threat, but Henley tried to argue nonetheless that he was defending his children from being exposed to a physically and sexually abusive environment.

The trial judge did not allow Henley to present the defense of others claim and he was convicted. The 2nd District Court of Appeal (Fort Worth) reversed the trial court, holding that Henley should have been allowed to present his defense. The State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

What is the Standard to Assert Defense of a Third Party?

To claim defense of a third person, a defendant must reasonably believe his intervention was immediately necessary to protect the third person from the threat of force.

The question in this case was not, “is defense of a third person an effective defense when considered by the jury?” Rather the question was “should the defendant be allowed to bring that defense at all under these facts?”

A Divided CCA Holds that the Trial Judge Did Not Err in Denying Henley the Ability to Raise Defense of a Third Person

The slim majority said no,. Henley should not be able to bring this defense because his aim was not to offer material or probative evidence, but rather to introduce evidence of how bad of a mother. Henley’s ex-wife is, and perhaps try to finagle a jury nullification. The majority saw Henley’s attempted defense as nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the judicial and evidentiary process and try to make an emotional appeal to the jury rather than a factual one.

The dissenting judges (Keller, Hervey, and Newell) argued that the defense should have been allowed because anything thing that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence should be deemed relevant and therefore admissible. Further, the question of whether Henley’s defense claims were reasonable belonged to the jury not the judge. It was the jury who should decide if Henley, in fact, acted reasonably on that day in question.

What are the Implications of this Holding for the Defense of Third Person Claim in Texas?

This case demonstrates that Defense of a Third Person is not as easy as simply claiming it. There must be evidence to show that the defense is reasonable. The evidence must show that the “intervention was immediately necessary to protect the third person from the threat of force” or it could be disallowed by the trial judge. The valid defense of others is still viable; as viable as it ever was. It simply must fit the facts.

Is it unusual for a misdemeanor case go to a grand jury? Simply put, YES.

Most misdemeanor cases in Texas are charged by way of a document called an ”information." An information does not have to be issued by a grand jury. The information can simply be prepared and reviewed by a District Attorney and then subsequently filed in a court with proper jurisdiction. Felony cases, on the other hand, must be indicted by a grand jury unless a defendant chooses to waive indictment and proceed without one.

What is a Grand Jury?

A grand jury in Texas is a group of 12 lay people qualified under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. These people must be citizens of the county in which the grand jury sits amongst other basic qualifications. Ultimately, the grand jury’s job is to listen to facts presented to them regarding the cases that they review and determine if probable cause exists for the State to continue forward to court. The grand jury does not have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the person’s guilt; they simply need to determine whether it is probable that the person committed the alleged offense based on the facts and testimony presented.

People often mistake a grand jury for a petit jury like they see in movies and television. A grand jury is very different from the juries that hear and decide the final trial. During a grand jury proceeding, there are no arguing defense attorneys or heated opening and closing statements, and there is no judge that physically presides over the process. The grand jury meets together in private room with prosecutors and witnesses. A major distinction of the grand jury is that all grand jury proceedings are secret. The Texas code of criminal procedure clearly states that all grand jury proceedings “shall be secret.” Another basic distinction is that the grand jury is organized and run solely by the district attorney’s office. The grand jury is essentially a tool used by and for the district attorney.

Why is Johnny Manziel's Misdemeanor Allegation Going Before the Dallas Grand Jury?

So – now that you know what a grand jury is and what they do – what does this mean for Johnny Football? If the filing of an "information" is the normal course of action for misdemeanor cases in Texas, why will Dallas County grand jurors review Johnny Manziel’s case tomorrow? That answer rests solely with the Dallas County District Attorney. We can only speculate as to why this may be.

Manziel’s case is obviously high profile for Dallas. If the Dallas DA’s office were to take the case and simply file it with an information or not reject it without the review of the grand jury, they face scrutiny from both sides of the aisle. If they file the case, Manziel’s supporters would claim that the DA’s office is trying to unfairly make an example of his celebrity status and constant publicized antics. However, if they refuse to file the case, Manziel’s critics and domestic abuse activists might claim that his popularity, money, and status are unfairly allowing him out of another sticky situation.

So, what better way to take the District Attorney’s name off of the ultimate decision than to let the Dallas County community – a.k.a. the grand jury – make it? More than likely this is precisely why, unlike most other misdemeanor cases in Dallas County, the grand jury will review Johnny Manziel’s case.

Does this make Johnny Manziel's Case a Felony?

No. A grand jury can hear a misdemeanor case just like it can hear a felony case, we just do not see grand juries used for misdemeanor cases very often. If the grand jury votes to issue an indictment, Manziel only faces a misdemeanor charge for Assault (Bodily Injury) to a Family Member.  This offense is a Class A misdmeanor which carries a punishment range of 0-365 days in county jail and a fine up to $4,000.

Ultimately, this may just be the fairest way for the State to proceed and review Johnny Football’s case and precisely the right time to use the grand jury for a misdemeanor case. As a defense attorney, I wish all of my misdemeanor clients got the benefit of a grand jury review, but the volume of cases is just too high for the State to be expected to process all felonies and misdemeanors through a grand jury.

The jury is still out on Johnny Football’s NFL career, but tomorrow the Dallas county grand jury gets to decide if even more juries lie ahead for this once seemingly-invincible Heisman Trophy winner.

Links to more Manziel Grand Jury Articles:

• Why Bringing Johnny Manziel's Case to a Grand Jury is Abnormal
• Johnny Manziel's case will be heard by grand jury Thursday
• Is Johnny Manziel smarter than a ham sandwich?

In Texas, our “failure to protect” statute is an omission statute—Injury to a Child by Omission—meaning it aims to encourage parents to remove their children from dangerous and violent environments. If a parent "fails to protect" their child from certain known dangers, that parent can be charged with Injury to a Child by Omission, a felony level offense in Texas. The statute also covers injury to an elderly or disabled individual. If the person charged with Injury to a Child by Omission is a domestic violence victim, it is important to be aware of the Affirmative Defense Texas provides.

Texas’ Injury to a Child by Omission Offense | Failure to Protect

Section 22.04 of the Texas Penal Code provides that a person commits an injury to a child if he recklessly by omission, causes to a child: (1) serious bodily injury; (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or (3) bodily injury. Id. § 22.04(a).

An omission is conduct constituting an offense if: (1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or (2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child. PENAL § 22.04(b).

The Texas Family Code provides that a parent, guardian, conservator or foster parent of the child has the legal duty of care, control, and protection of the child. The State must prove that the defendant either intended or was aware that serious bodily injury would occur from their omissions. Patterson v. State, 46 S.W.3d 294.

Affirmative Defense to Prosecution for Domestic Violence Victims

In the early 90s, Texas established an affirmative defense for people charged with Injury to a Child by Omission. An affirmative defense is a complete and absolute legal defense. In the Failure to Protect scenario, a person can claim the affirmative defense if the following requirements are met:

1. there be no evidence that the defendant had any knowledge of a previous injury to the child and that they failed to report the injury;
2. the defendant “was a victim of family violence...committed by the same person “who is also charged with an offense against the child”; and
3. the defendant reasonably believed, at the time they failed to act, that any attempt to prevent the person from hurting the child “would have an effect.”

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(l)(2) (West 2011).

The Reality of Prosecution for Failure to Protect in Texas

Most often, mothers are the ones charged with Failure to Protect in Texas. In 2014, there were 19 women in Texas prisons serving time for Injury to a Child by Omission with sentences starting at ten years, all the way up to 45 years. Seven of these women were domestic violence victims. In fact, a Tarrant County woman who was also a victim to the violence of the man who injured her child is currently serving 40 years. Hopper v. State, 2013 WL 4679166 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2013, pet. ref’d.) Furthermore, the woman serving 45 years was a case out of Dallas County where she was also a victim to the violence of the man who injured her child. It is unknown whether these women asserted the affirmative defense at trial.

As mentioned above, there are serious consequences attached to Injury to a Child by Omission and it is important to recognize all possible defense options. Many people do not know that the affirmative defense regarding domestic violence exists. If you are charged with an Injury to a Child by Omission and are also a victim of the abuser’s violence, this defense might apply to you. Contact our team today to find out what steps can be taken in your case. Regardless of whether this affirmative defense applies in your case, our attorneys will still fight hard to get your case dismissed or mitigated in any way they can.

Acquitted of the Underlying Assault that Necessitated a 911 Call, Defendant’s Guilty Verdict for Interference with 911 Call Upheld, Says the Second Court of Appeals

In February 2014, David Schumm and his wife were arguing in their home when she tried to place a 911 call. His wife testified that he prevented her from making the call by taking her cell phone. Fearing an assault, she ran outside, screaming for help. Schumm allegedly followed her outside, dragged her onto their porch and “strangled” her. At trial, Schumm denied all assaultive conduct and denied taking her cell phone. Schumm was charged in two separate cases with Interference with 911 Call and with Assault Family Violence with Impeding Breath. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.062 and § 22.01(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2015). Schumm was acquitted of the felony assault charge at trial.

At a separate trial for the Interference with a 911 Call charge, the jury was allowed to hear that Schumm had been accused and tried for felony assault, however, the jury was not allowed to hear that he had been acquitted of the charge. Schumm’s attorney attempted to get a certified judgment of acquittal admitted into evidence, but the State’s relevance objection was upheld—the trial court prevented Schumm from disclosing to the jury his acquittal. Schumm appealed his conviction for Interference with a 911 Call on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence of the felony assault acquittal.

Read the court's opinion in Schumm v. State.

Interference with 911 Call | Interference with an Emergency Call

Under Texas Law, to be found guilty of interfering with an emergency call an (1) individual (2) knowingly (3) prevents or interferes with (4) another individual’s (5) ability to place an emergency call or to request help, including with a cell phone (6) from a law enforcement agency, (7) in an emergency...[“a condition in which an individual is…in fear of imminent assault.”]. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.062(a)-(d).

Appealing to the Second Court of Appeals, Schumm argues that the excluded evidence of his acquittal is relevant to the element of “emergency” (#7 above). He contends that because he was acquitted of “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing” of his wife, that there was no proof that an emergency actually existed, and that, because no emergency existed, not all of the elements of “interfering with an emergency call” have been fulfilled. In short, there is reasonable doubt that an emergency existed at all because he was acquitted of the underlying assault, and, because the trial testimony is her word against his.

Here, the Second Court of Appeals disagrees with Schumm, “yet the judgment of the acquittal [Schumm] sought to admit did not show that the felony jury had specifically found no emergency.” The jury did not find that Schumm’s wife was not in fear of an imminent assault at the time Schumm allegedly prevented her from using her cell phone. Instead, the felony jury found that the Schumm should be acquitted of the “assault by impeding breathing” charge. The Court notes that “emergency is not an element of assault by impeding breathing” and a “completed assault is not an element of the offense of interference with an emergency call.” Id. In short, the evidence had no bearing on whether Schumm’s wife feared an imminent assault when she tried to call 911; the Court does not address the possibility that there is reasonable doubt that an emergency existed in the first place. The Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of guilty.

How Do I Drop a Family Violence Case in Tarrant County?

In our practice as criminal defense lawyers, we often get calls about Family Violence (Assault of a Family Member) cases. These cases typically result from an argument that got out of hand, wherein one party called the police to help diffuse the situation, not knowing that the police would take someone to jail. Many times there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding whether the "victim" of the alleged assault can "drop" the case after the other person is arrested and charged with Family Violence.

In Fort Worth, the Tarrant County District Attorney's office has a "No-Drop Policy" on Family Violence cases. The No Drop Policy basically means is that once the case is filed with the District Attorney's office, it is NOT the alleged victim's choice whether to drop the charges. It is entirely in the prosecutor's discretion how to handle the case if the victim does not want to go forward.

Despite the No Drop Policy, there are things that an alleged victim can do to express his or her desire that the case not be prosecuted. This begins with the Alternatives Class offered through Safe Haven. Before the District Attorney's office will allow an alleged victim to sign an Affidavit of Non-Prosecution, they require that the alleged victim attend this 4-hour class.

After the alleged victim attends the Alternatives Class at Safe Haven, he or she may then elect to speak with the victim coordinator at the District Attorney's Office. In this interview, the alleged victim will be allowed to talk with the victim coordinator and tell them why they believe the case should not be prosecuted. This is also the time in which the alleged victim will sign the Affidavit of Non-Prosecution.

These steps can go a long way in achieving a favorable outcome on domestic violence cases. If you or a loved one needs help navigating these options, please call us today. We handle Family Violence cases on a daily basis and have a proven track record of good results. Some helpful numbers are contained below.

Alternatives Class at Safe Haven - (817) 536-5496

Tarrant County Victim Coordinator - (817) 884-3535