Id. When the defendant properly objected to the error in the charge, reversal is required unless the error was harmless. Id.; see also Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim de an instruction on a defensive issue in the charge for an abuse of discretion, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant’s requested submission. See Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779, 782 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447, 455 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd). Penal Code section 9.04 provides: The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by th erroneously failed to submit appellant’s requested section 9.04 instruction, we must now determine whether this failure caused some harm to appellant. See Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 (<HOLDING>). “To determine if there is any harm, the
holding that constitutional error cannot be premised on error in a charge unless the error violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the fourteenth amendment holding that when defendant properly objects to charge error reversal required unless error was harmless holding exclusion was harmless error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding a cage violation could never be held harmless error and thus not amenable to harmless error review but rather required outright reversal