VanBrackle v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that trial “court’s refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense caused some harm to appellant” despite significant deficiencies in defensive evidence
• concluding evidence defendant “responded to this assault by grabbing the pistol, pushing it away, and calling for help” was observable manifestation of defendant’s state of mind
• concluding evidence defendant “responded to this assault by grabbing the pistol, pushing it away, and calling for help” was observable manifestation of defendant’s state of mind
• “[T]he defendant must ‘admit’ violating the statute under which he is being tried, then offer a statutory justification for his otherwise criminal conduct.”
• whether a defendant’s beliefs reasonable is a fact question for the jury, not a preliminary question for the trial court to evaluate in determining whether a self- defense instruction is warranted
• whether a defendant’s beliefs reasonable is a fact question for the jury, not a preliminary question for the trial court to evaluate in determining whether a self- defense instruction is warranted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).