Trial begins for burglar who was shot by homeowner

[Paladin]

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4559649

"Trial begins for burglar who was shot by homeowner
Feb 27, 2006, 05:33 PM CST

CORPUS CHRISTI - Testimony began Monday in the trail of a suspected burglar who was shot by a homeowner. Authorities said when 22-year-old Daniel Holcomb broke into a house in the 2200 block of Gershwin last September, he was confronted face-to-face with homeowner Danny Dunn.

Holcomb allegedly stabbed Dunn several times during a scuffle in the garage and when Dunn went back into the house he grabbed a .22 and shot Holcomb three times.

"He flopped around out here for a while, and he wouldn't stay down, like I told him, I told him I was going to kill him, and I should have," Dunn told 6 News back in September.

Holcomb managed to get away from the house, but he was later arrested at a local hospital where he'd gone to get his wounds treated."

[HighVelocity]

"He flopped around out here for a while, and he wouldn't stay down, like I told him, I told him I was going to kill him, and I should have," Dunn told 6 News back in September.

Only in TX could one say that and not bring heat on ones self. God Bless Texas!

[G.C.Montgomery]

The homeowner sounds old school. You know, back when "He needed killin' Your Honor..." was a viable criminal defense in Texas.....Sounds like my kinda guy.

[Kalrog]

The other one I like is when someone is on trial for attempted murder.

defendant: "Your honor, if I had tried to kill him - he would be dead."
judge: "Case dismissed."

[jbirds1210]

HV,
Why would someone willingly relocate from Texas? I just don't get it!
Jason

[HighVelocity]

HV,
Why would someone willingly relocate from Texas? I just don't get it!
Jason

How true. I can only think of two reasons to leave TX. Family matters or financial crisis. Still, leaving would be a last resort.

[KBCraig]

HV,
Why would someone willingly relocate from Texas? I just don't get it!
Jason

I'll remind you in July.

That's when I'll be sitting in the hills of northern New Hampshire, where, it might reach the same temp we had today in Texarkana, 82F.

And then I'm going to have to come back, because we can't move for a couple more years.

Kevin

[dws1117]

"He flopped around out here for a while, and he wouldn't stay down, like I told him, I told him I was going to kill him, and I should have," Dunn told 6 News back in September.

While I like the comment, I certainly hope that it doesn't come back to bite him in court. It's an comment. He could have killed the vermin but he didn't. I could see a skilled prosecuter turning it around in court.

It doesn't appear so, but does anyone know if the homeowner was charged with anything? Not that he should.

[sparx]

That's what really irks me with some of our laws in today’s world... a bloody criminal breaks into a law-abiding citizen’s home to rob, maim or murder, gets caught, gets shot and then has the audacity of legally suing the citizen in civil court for damages, “pain and suffering�, etc. for an act that they brought on themselves when the illegally committed the crime of breaking and entering in the first place.

I think the law should, if the criminal survived, state that they (the criminal) should consider themselves lucky if they survived, and let them serve their time for the crime committed and endure any pain, suffering or other troubles they brought upon themselves since they were the ones that knew full well, or should have known, the risk that they were taking before they even attempted the crime.

If a criminal has “rights� like this that aren’t corrected (isn’t it called the Castle Doctrine?), I think the homeowner should at least be able to turn around and sue the criminal for scaring the #2 out of them, any damage to the home that resulted from the act, stress, lawyer and court fees, etc., for the same amount or more, thereby nullifying the criminal’s suit in full since the “act� wouldn’t have happened in the first place if the criminal hadn’t instigated it. I also don't think relatives of the criminal should be allowed to sue on their behalf, either, for damages incured from the result of commiting the crime. I mean, who's the real victim here??

Anyway, that's my .02, so I'll step down now... just had to vent a bit.

[Kalrog]

There are some states that disallow civil penalties in a legal shoot situation like this. Florida comes to mind...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Texas currently provides some limited protection from civil suits to people who lawfully use deadly force against another.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §83 creates an affirmative defense for a homeowner who injures or kills a burglar.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §86 states that certain convicted persons (or their family) cannot recover for injuries or death, if those injuries or the death were caused during the commission of a felony or [certain] misdemeanors. There are certain exceptions, but they don't apply if he was injured or killed in an attempt to prevent the felony or [certain] misdemeanors, or to apprehend him during or immediately after the crime. Note, if you kill him, he won't be "convicted" of anything, so this is a catch 22. The a person is "convicted" only if a sentence is imposed, or the person receives a fine, probation, or deferred adjudication. (See§86.006.)

A true Castle Doctrine would be much stronger.

Regards,
Chas.

Here are the relevant code provisions:

§ 83.001.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32, Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.

§ 86.002. RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO CONVICTED
PERSON PROHIBITED. (a) A claimant who has been convicted of a elony or misdemeanor may not recover damages for an injury sustained during the commission of the felony or misdemeanor if the injury would not have been sustained but for the commission of the felony or misdemeanor.

(b) Subsection (a) does not bar the claimant from recovering
damages if the claimant shows that:
(1) the damages arose from an act entirely separate from any act intended to result in the:
(A) prevention of the commission of a felony or misdemeanor by the claimant; or
(B) apprehension of the claimant during or immediately after the commission of the felony or misdemeanor; and
(2) the damages did not arise from a premises defect or other circumstance that the claimant was exposed to as a result of the commission of the felony or misdemeanor.

§ 86.003. DERIVATIVE CLAIMS. Section 86.002 applies to a claim for damages made by a claimant other than a convicted person if:

(1) the claimant's right to recovery results from an injury to a convicted person, including a claim for the wrongful death of the convicted person or a claim for loss of consortium with or loss of the companionship of the convicted person; and
(2) the convicted person's right to recovery would be barred under Section 86.002.


§ 86.006. CONVICTED PERSON. For purposes of this chapter, a person is considered convicted in a case if:

(1) sentence is imposed; or
(2) the person receives a fine, probation, or deferred adjudication.

§ 86.007. APPLICABILITY. This chapter does not apply to:

(1) a claim for an injury sustained during the commission of an offense under Section 30.05, Penal Code, other than a trespass in a habitation or shelter, brought by a person who has not been convicted of another crime that occurred in conjunction with the trespass; or

(2) a claim in which the conduct of the owner of the premises is grossly negligent or intentional, other than conduct justified under Subchapter C, Chapter 9, Penal Code.

[sparx]

Thank you Charles for such an excellent, and detailed, post!

Although we as a state may have a ways to go, it's nice to know that there really IS some common sense in our laws with regards to true self-defense when protecting ourselves, even if they are limited. I was just stunned a bit when I misread the news and incorrectly thought the guy, Mr. Holcomb, who broke into Mr. Dunn's house to rob him and when caught in the act, stabbed Mr. Dunn several times and was suing for injuries incurred when Mr. Dunn reciprocated with his .22.

I was thinking at the time that it’s really unfortunate Mr. Dunn has to go through this, but it’s a relief to now know that I wasn’t “readin’ right� at the time, and it’s the *burglar* whose trial was to begin last Monday.

Thanks again for the info… and as usual, I’m picking up some GREAT info here on TCHL!

[dws1117]

I seem to remember hearing attorney say that if the criminal is convicted in a criminal trial then it makes the attorney's job easier in civil trial.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I seem to remember hearing attorney say that if the criminal is convicted in a criminal trial then it makes the attorney's job easier in civil trial.

Yes, when that happens, from then on it all