McMurrey Corp. v. Yawn
143 S.W.2d 664 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a civil wrongful death action where self-defense is claimed, a jury instruction defining a 'wrongful' act is erroneous if it fails to explain the law of self-defense, which judges the defendant's actions based on their reasonable apprehension of danger from their own standpoint at the time of the event, especially when prior threats are involved.
Facts:
- Girardus H. Yawn previously managed the Pinkston oil lease before it was purchased by Jim McMurrey.
- Jim McMurrey discharged Yawn and hired Rudolph Loesewitz to guard and manage the lease in his place.
- After Yawn was discharged, oil wells on the lease were turned on at night on two occasions, causing tanks to overflow; Loesewitz suspected Yawn was responsible.
- Threats allegedly made by Yawn against Loesewitz's life were communicated to Loesewitz on the night before and minutes before the fatal encounter.
- Loesewitz was informed that Yawn was on the lease, at which point he armed himself with a shotgun and confronted Yawn.
- During the confrontation, Loesewitz claimed Yawn made a movement as if reaching for a weapon.
- Loesewitz, believing Yawn was about to attack him, shot and killed Yawn.
- It was later determined that Yawn had been unarmed at the time of the shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Addie Yawn and her minor children (appellees) sued the McMurrey Corporation, various McMurrey individuals, and related companies (appellants) in a Texas trial court for the wrongful death of Girardus H. Yawn.
- The case was tried before a jury, which was asked to answer several 'special issues'.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Yawn family and against defendants Jim McMurrey, M. H. McMurrey, and the McMurrey Corporation.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict for the plaintiffs.
- The McMurrey defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, challenging, among other things, the trial court's jury instructions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a wrongful death suit where the defendant claims self-defense based on prior communicated threats, is a jury instruction legally sufficient if it defines a 'wrongful' killing merely as 'the use of a greater degree of force than was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances then existing' without further explaining the principles of apparent danger and self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Justice
No. A jury instruction in a self-defense case is legally insufficient if it defines 'wrongful' merely as the use of excessive force without explaining the core principles of self-defense. The law of self-defense in a civil action is the same as in a criminal prosecution, except for the evidentiary standard. When self-defense is raised, the jury must be instructed that the critical issue is the defendant's reasonable belief of danger from his own standpoint at the time of the incident. It is not essential for real danger to exist; a defendant may act on an apparent danger that he reasonably believes to be real. When there is evidence of prior threats, the jury must also be instructed that the defendant may be justified if the deceased, by some act, manifested an intention to execute those threats. The trial court's simple instruction was misleading and failed to provide the jury with the proper legal framework to evaluate Loesewitz's self-defense claim, constituting a reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the standards for evaluating a self-defense claim in a civil wrongful death case mirror those in criminal law, focusing on the defendant's subjective, but reasonable, perception of imminent harm. It establishes that a trial court cannot give a generic or conclusory jury instruction on 'wrongfulness' but must provide specific guidance on the nuances of self-defense, including the concepts of apparent danger and the relevance of prior threats. This precedent ensures that juries are properly equipped to analyze the defendant's state of mind and perspective, rather than judging the situation with the benefit of hindsight, thereby protecting individuals who act under a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief of mortal danger.
