The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of hindering apprehension.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of hindering apprehension if the person, with the intent to hinder the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for an offense, warns the other of impending discovery or apprehension.

Definitions

Intent to Hinder the Arrest, Prosecution, Conviction, or Punishment of Another for an Offense

“Intent to hinder the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for an offense” means the conscious objective or desire to hinder the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for an offense.

Application of Law to Facts

You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, two elements. The elements are that—

1. the defendant, in [county] County, Texas, on or about [date], warned [name] of impending discovery or apprehension [insert specific allegations, e.g., by shouting to [name] that peace officers were present to arrest [name]]; and
2. the defendant had the intent to hinder the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of [name] for the offense of [Insert specific offense, e.g., theft].

You must all agree on elements 1 and 2 listed above.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or both of the elements listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

[Select one of the following.]

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the two elements listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[or]

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the two elements listed above, you must next consider whether the defendant is not guilty because of the defense of encouraging compliance with the law.

[Include the following if raised by the evidence.]

Encouraging Compliance with the Law

It is a defense to hindering apprehension or prosecution by warning another that the warning was given in connection with an effort to bring the other into compliance with the law.

Burden of Proof

The defendant is not required to prove that the defense of encouraging compliance applies to this case. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the warning was not given in connection with an effort to bring the other into compliance with the law.

Application of Law to Facts

To decide this issue, you must determine and all agree whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the warning to [name] was not given in connection with an effort to bring [name] into compliance with the law.

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the warning was not given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with the law, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of hindering apprehension or prosecution, and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the warning was not given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with the law, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge.]