Henley v. State

Keller, P.J.,

filed a dissenting opinion in which Hervey and Newell, JJ., joined.

The Court says that appellant’s proffered evidence, if admitted, would not have raised the “defense of third person” because “the harm from which appellant was purportedly protecting his children was neither immediately present nor certain to occur in the immediate future.” I believe that this statement misconstrues the underlying law of self-defense upon which the law of defense-of-third-persons depends.

The use of force to protect a third person is justified if, “under the circumstances as the actor reasonably…