TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:I think anything that is introduced into evidence stands a good chance of becoming public, even if it's not supposed to.

Alzheimer's disease is a terrible thing and not a joking matter at all, but now this man's neighbors know that he is not playing with a full deck.

- Jim

Grand Jury proceedings are secret, so I question both disclosure of a medical condition and the reason for the GJ returning a "no bill." It's not a big deal really, just interesting.

Chas.

Thanks for the update Jim. Grand Jury proceedings are secret; I wonder why so much information was made available to the press? Disclosing medical information to the press without a HIPAA release? Interesting . . .

Chas.

seamusTX wrote:

boomerang wrote:Isn't it the same time requirement as 30.06?

The time frame for leaving when you get oral notice is however long it takes the cops to get there.

- Jim

And when they get there, the COPS are going to have the property owner tell you to leave in his presence and if you don't, then you get arrested. This isn't technically required, but that's how every agency I'm familiar with does it, unless there is a prior trespass warning on file with the PD.

Chas.

boomerang wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:TPC §30.05 does not set a time requirement as to how quickly someone must leave the property. I suggest that offering an explanation to the property owner as to why they were there does not constitute "failing" to leave when told to do so.

Isn't it the same time requirement as 30.06?

I'd say "yes" if your notice under TPC §30.06 was verbal.

Chas.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:Its pretty simple really.

This could have all been avoided had the couple NOT tresspassed. It was not their property and they had absolutely NO right to be there.

Compassion for the couple plays no part in this. They had a family member die in a plane crash. I understand this and feel bad for them. However, this does not give them full reign. They can't just park in anyones driveway because they want to. If there was no place to park in the immediate area find one further down the road and walk.

We must remember that this couple did not trespass when they parked in his driveway, if that is what they did. The property was not posted against trespassing, and they wouldn't become trespassers unless they were told to leave and they did not. TPC §30.05 does not set a time requirement as to how quickly someone must leave the property. I suggest that offering an explanation to the property owner as to why they were there does not constitute "failing" to leave when told to do so.

Chas.

I don't know if the couple parked on the homeowner's property or not. The available reports are not at all clear on that issue. If they did park on his property, then the homeowner may be able to beat the charge either under a claim of self-defense or pursuant to TPC §9.04 Threats as Force. If he does, he will have spent a lot of money to be victorious. If the car was on an easement or otherwise not on the homeowner's property, then his chances of winning are slim. Either way, I bet he wishes he could do this all over again.

This case is a great example why I end every CHL class with the same admonition -- "Be responsible, not merely legal." As a trial lawyer, I promise you you don't want your attorney to have to explain to a jury why you walked up to an alleged trespasser, ordered them off your property, then pulled a gun on them when they tried to explain why they were there. Add this to the mix - the woman had just lost her brother in a fiery plane crash. Some will argue that this is irrelevant, but I beg to differ. I've won a lot of cases by what I was able to put into the hearts of jurors. And don't think for one second jurors don't ignore the instructions and definitions contained court's "charge." If a jury decides you are a jerk, they're going to find a way to let you know how they feel.

Chas.