¶1concurring.
¶2I concur in the majority’s result but not its analysis, other than that regarding invited error. The jury instruction is confusing and does shift the burden of proof to the defendant. The express instruction essentially orders the jury to acquit the defendant unless the jury finds the parental defense from the evidence or has a reasonable doubt thereof.
¶3Reading the instruction as written leads to an absurd result, but this is the instruction that Appellant insisted upon, and it is incorporated into the jury charge exactly as he requested. Appellant cannot now complain about error that he invited.
¶4. See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102, 120 S.Ct. 1840, 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000).