Frank Ettin said:
Presumptions are rebuttable.
If you feel like reading, this is contained in Section 2.05(b) of the Texas Penal Code.
To me it looks like if the State can't disprove the facts that give rise the presumption, the jury must find the presumed fact exists. So it isn't the presumed fact (reasonable fear) you fight over. It's the facts that give rise to the presumption (a break in or other Castle Doctrine trigger). I'm not sure if this is what you mean by a rebuttable presumption or not.
But using the basic facts of MN case, we can assume for the sake of argument that they really broke in and the State cannot disprove that. Nonetheless, in TX, the judge can look at all the evidence and decide not to give the Castle Doctrine question to the jury.
So at least in Texas, the Castle Doctrine is not a license to kill.