DALLAS — For many Texas legislators, last year's "castle law" seemed like a no-brainer: Anyone breaking into your home, car or business poses a grave threat, so you should have the right to shoot first and ask questions later.
The new law has yet to see its day in court, but that day is coming. Some prosecutors worry the law will cause more confusion than clarity in court.
Worse, they fear it will let real murderers off the hook.
They are particularly concerned about a legal concept, called a "presumption," used in the law by legislators who appear not to have considered its potential consequences.
Prosecutors say it could force juries to "presume" it was necessary to kill someone, even when other evidence casts that into serious doubt.
The castle law says a citizen is "presumed" to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is breaking into his occupied home, business or car.
People are also reading…
But what does the word "presumed" mean in a courtroom? If your actions are "presumed" to be reasonable, does that mean they are reasonable?
Common sense says no. Texas law, however, may now say yes.
"The existence of this presumption is so scary to prosecutors, that we would prefer to see the bill not passed than passed in the present state that we see it today," Harris County Assistant District Attorney Bill Delmore told legislators before the bill's passage.
In the past, presumptions have appeared in Texas criminal law only to help prosecutors, because they bear the heavy burden of proof.
But in 2005, the Legislature passed a gun law that contained a new legal concept: a presumption that favored defendants.
Essentially, it said this: Unless prosecutors can disprove the basis for a presumption that favors a defendant, jurors must treat that presumption as fact.
The law's language caused so much confusion that legislators scrapped it last year. But they didn't get rid of a section about how presumptions must be dealt with in court.
Now comes the castle law. It contains a presumption that favors defendants. For courts, this would be a complicated matter to begin with. But even more problematic is that it must be interpreted under the terms of the failed gun law.
