Michael Caffey v. State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-01-00423-CR
Michael CAFFEY,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2001-CR-1575
Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 12, 2001

AFFIRMED

Michael Caffey appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and aggravated kidnaping with intent to commit sexual abuse. On appeal, Caffey contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense. Because the issue on appeal involves well-settled law, we overrule Caffey's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 47.1

The authority upon which Caffey relies is inapplicable. While the cases he cites stand for the proposition that a trial court must instruct the jury on every defensive issue raised by the evidence, the instruction in each case cited was requested by defense counsel. See Hays v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Semaire v. State, 612 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Here, counsel did not request an instruction on self-defense. Accordingly, the error was waived. See Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding trial court has no duty to sua sponte instruct the jury on unrequested defensive issues); accord Vasquez v. State, 2 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd) (holding trial court did not err by failing to include self-defense instruction jury charge when defendant failed to request it or object to its omission).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH