Brazzil v. State
28 Tex. Ct. App. 584, 13 S.W. 1006, 1890 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 73 (1890)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An initial aggressor who provokes a conflict can regain their right to self-defense if they withdraw from the conflict in good faith and in a manner that clearly communicates the withdrawal to the other party. If the other party then initiates a new confrontation, the original aggressor's right to self-defense is restored for that second encounter.
Facts:
- On December 25, 1889, J. V. Matthews beat up D. Brazzil, the brother of the appellant.
- Later that afternoon, the appellant, Brazzil, went to a store and confronted Matthews, calling him a 'd—d son-of-a-bitch' and initiating a physical conflict.
- During the fight, both men drew pistols; Matthews shot and wounded Brazzil in the chest, and Brazzil struck Matthews's arm, causing him to drop his pistol.
- Matthews fled out the back of the store, and Brazzil followed partway before stopping and stating, 'I can’t shoot a man in the back.'
- Matthews went across the street to another store, but after two or three minutes, he announced he was going to get his pistol and ran back towards the first store where Brazzil remained.
- As Matthews advanced onto the store's gallery, Brazzil, who had warned him to stop, fired two non-fatal shots.
- Matthews grappled with Brazzil, pushing him across the store until Brazzil pushed Matthews away and fired the fatal shot.
Procedural Posture:
- Brazzil was prosecuted by the State for the murder of J. V. Matthews in a trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Brazzil guilty.
- Brazzil, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court’s jury instructions regarding self-defense and provoking the difficulty were erroneous and prejudicial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual who provokes an initial conflict, but then clearly and in good faith withdraws from it, regain the right to self-defense against the original victim if the victim later initiates a second, separate confrontation?
Opinions:
Majority - White, Presiding Judge
Yes. An individual who provokes a conflict but then withdraws in good faith regains the right to self-defense if the other party initiates a new confrontation. The court determined that the events constituted two separate and distinct encounters. Although Brazzil provoked the first conflict, he unequivocally abandoned it by disarming Matthews, allowing him to flee to a place of safety, and explicitly stating he would not shoot him in the back. This withdrawal was so clear in time, place, and circumstance that it ended the first conflict. When Matthews returned minutes later to re-engage, he became the aggressor in a new, second conflict, which revived Brazzil's right to claim self-defense. The trial court's instructions improperly treated the entire event as a single continuous combat, which prejudiced Brazzil's self-defense claim for the second encounter.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'withdrawal doctrine' as a key exception to the rule that an initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense. It establishes that a conflict can be legally divided into separate encounters, and an aggressor's right to self-defense can be restored if their abandonment of the initial conflict is unambiguous and made in good faith. The decision compels future courts to scrutinize the facts to determine if a first encounter has truly concluded, preventing an initial victim from pursuing vengeance under the guise of the original fight. This precedent is crucial for defining the boundaries of self-defense when the roles of aggressor and victim shift during a confrontation.
