Jeremy D. Chaney v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 137th District Court of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-08-0426-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
AUGUST 6, 2010
JEREMY D. CHANEY,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2008-419,247; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Jeremy D. Chaney was convicted of assault against a family member (his former
wife). He contends the trial court committed error in failing to give him an instruction on
the affirmative defense of protection of life or health. We affirm the judgment.
Background
On January 25, 2008, appellant and his former wife, Betty, went to pick up her
daughter from her place of employment. The daughter refused to get into the car when
she observed that appellant was with her mother. Appellant and Betty left but became
engaged in an argument with each other. This resulted in Betty exiting the car at an
intersection and crossing multiple lanes of traffic. Appellant gave chase in the vehicle,
met Betty in a nearby parking lot, grabbed her by her hair and pulled her back into the
car. This was witnessed by various people who attempted to come to her aid. One
heard Betty say that appellant was going to kill her.
After forcing Betty into the car, appellant drove away. However, he was soon
stopped by the police. One officer confronted appellant who simply indicated that he
was driving his wife home. This same officer also questioned Betty and noticed that she
had red marks on the inside of her left bicep and clumps of her hair in her hand.
At trial, appellant testified that Betty was drunk, initially attempted to exit the
vehicle while it was moving, eventually left it while stopped at an intersection, and ran
into the traffic. He also asserted that he gave chase to protect her.
Instruction
As previously mentioned, appellant believed that he was entitled to the
submission of an instruction informing the jury that a person is justified in using force
other than deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §9.34(a) (Vernon
inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
2003). It was denied him, however. Nonetheless, the trial court did charge the jury on
the defense of necessity. Per the latter, the jurors were told that an accused’s conduct
is justified when the actor reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to avoid
imminent harm and the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweighs,
2
according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by
the law proscribing the conduct. Id. §9.22.
It is true that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on every defense as long
as there is evidence to raise it. Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997). Furthermore, the source, credibility, or strength of the evidence is immaterial to
the determination of whether the instruction should be included in the charge. Hamel v.
State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). For purposes of this appeal, we
assume arguendo that sufficient evidence appeared of record to warrant the submission
of the instruction denied appellant. That being done, the issue becomes whether the
omission was harmful. And, because appellant requested the instruction, the pertinent
test for assessing harm is whether the error was calculated to injure his rights. Almanza
v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
We conclude that the requisite harm was not shown at bar. This is so for several
reasons. First, there is a significant overlap between the defenses of necessity and
protection of life or health. Kenny v. State, 292 S.W.3d 89, 101 (Tex. App.–Houston
[14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d). Both focus upon the need to exert force in aid of another.
Furthermore, it is conceivable that an instruction on necessity may ameliorate any harm
posed by the omitted instruction. That is, the former provided the jury with a means of
finding appellant’s conduct justifiable if needed to protect Betty from herself, and the
same is true of the latter. So, it is rather difficult to say that appellant was actually
denied the benefits of the defense he pursued. Of course, the jurors had to accept his
version of events. Moreover, and unlike the defensive instruction denied him, that of
necessity relieved appellant of having to prove that his ex-wife was about to commit
3
suicide or suffer serious bodily injury. Indeed, the instruction submitted required no
proof that Betty faced a risk of death or serious bodily injury but only that there was the
presence of imminent harm. And, one cannot deny that the rather amorphous concept
“harm” could be interpreted as encompassing much more than death or serious bodily
injury.
Second, other than appellant’s own testimony, little to no other evidence
supported his proposition that he was acting for the good of Betty.
Rather, those
without an obvious potential for personal bias spoke of seeing his aggressive behavior
and the fear emanating from Betty. So too did one or more describe the rather insulting
words used by him to describe Betty at the time. Such is not necessarily demeanor
exemplified by a person who cares for the well-being of another to whom his actions are
directed.
Third, among the plethora of evidence tendered to the jurors was that illustrating
appellant’s criminal history. It encompassed multiple convictions for assaultive conduct,
some of which was directed against Betty. Having been convicted of assaulting his exwife in the past hardly strengthens the contention that the physical force used against
her at bar was for her own protection.
In sum, appellant was afforded the opportunity to gain freedom by justifying his
conduct via the instruction submitted. And while the evidence supporting his claimed
defense was weak, that negating it was rather strong. So too did his criminal history
tend to negate his credibility. Thus, we cannot say that appellant was harmed when the
4
trial court omitted the instruction at issue. Consequently, we overrule the point of error
and affirm the judgment.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.