JohnKsa —- did you read Texas Penal code 30.01 Before saying I was backing into my position?
I didn't just read it, I QUOTED from it. How could you possibly not realize that significant portions of my posts on this thead were taken word from word from it?
Texas Penal Code disagrees.
Here's the exact definition.
"Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.
Actually, if Texas recognizes the concept of curtilage, walking onto someone's front porch or remaining in their immediate front yard after being told to leave would be exactly the same as being in their habitation. That's what the concept of "curtilage" is all about.
Did you read the definition of habitation? It specifically refers to a structure. A structure is a pretty specific thing.
While there very well may be other laws in TX where curtilage applies the very specific definition of habitation makes it clear exactly what is being defined and it's not the patio, not the land around the house, it's "a structure". And not just any structure, it has to be a structure designed for overnight accommodation of persons.
And not just any part of the structure, it is a "secured" or "occupied" part of the structure.
And just being near it doesn't apply, one must enter or attempt to enter. (Keep in mind that the entire concept of entering demands that there be an inside and an outside and going from one to another.)
And just entering (going from outside to inside) or attempting to enter doesn't apply, it must be done unlawfully.
And just doing it unlawfully doesn't apply, it must also be done with force.
I'll say it again, if you find yourself searching for ways to interpret the law to fit a spun version of the circumstances, you're working backwards from a conclusion instead of letting the law and the circumstances point towards a conclusion.
In other words, you don't look at the law and say:
Is there any possible way we can take this law and these circumstances and creatively make them fit together?
A defense attorney may be forced to try a strategy like that to do his job, but that's not how the law should be interpreted in general.
You want to look at the circumstances and the law and ask yourself if they mesh. Not "How can I possibly MAKE them mesh?", not "Are there any unusual definitions of any of the common terms that might make them mesh?", not "Is there a way to spin the circumstances so it looks like the laws might fit that altered version of reality?" Just look at them and see if they fit.
If you have to try to redefine a "structure designed for overnight accommodation" into a porch, that's a clue you're trying too hard.
If you have to redefine "entering a habitation unlawfully and with force" to stepping onto a porch while screaming at someone, to make things fit, then it's time to step back and reassess.
The laws were written with clear intent and the definitions are explicit to help avoid confusion. Just look at them and take them for what they actually say.
Again, I'm not arguing the issue of guilt or innocence--I'm just saying that Castle Doctrine doesn't apply.
To be even more clear, I'm not claiming that there's no creative interpretation of Castle Doctrine that a really good attorney might be able to convince a gullible jury is a good fit to the circumstances of the case.
I'm just saying that if you look at the circumstances and you look at the Castle Doctrine and you don't have any agenda, it's clear that Castle Doctrine doesn't apply here. That doesn't mean it wasn't self-defense, just that one should look elsewhere in the Penal Code to find the justification that fits.
)
.