Showing posts with label Affirmative defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Affirmative defense. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

HOUSTON CRIMINAL ATTORNEY ANDY NOLEN: INSANITY DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

HOUSTON CRIMINAL ATTORNEY ANDY NOLEN: INSANITY DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Insanity Defense
PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 8. GENERAL DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 8.01.  INSANITY.  (a)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.
(b)  The term "mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2640, ch. 454, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 8.02.  MISTAKE OF FACT.  (a)  It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
(b)  Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 8.03.  MISTAKE OF LAW.  (a)  It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.
(b)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor reasonably believed the conduct charged did not constitute a crime and that he acted in reasonable reliance upon:
(1)  an official statement of the law contained in a written order or grant of permission by an administrative agency charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question; or
(2)  a written interpretation of the law contained in an opinion of a court of record or made by a public official charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question.
(c)  Although an actor's mistake of law may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of a lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the law were as he believed.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 8.04.  INTOXICATION.  (a)  Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of crime.
(b)  Evidence of temporary insanity caused by intoxication may be introduced by the actor in mitigation of the penalty attached to the offense for which he is being tried.
(c)  When temporary insanity is relied upon as a defense and the evidence tends to show that such insanity was caused by intoxication, the court shall charge the jury in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(d)  For purposes of this section "intoxication" means disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 8.05.  DURESS.  (a)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.
(b)  In a prosecution for an offense that does not constitute a felony, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by force or threat of force.
(c)  Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only if the force or threat of force would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.
(d)  The defense provided by this section is unavailable if the actor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to compulsion.
(e)  It is no defense that a person acted at the command or persuasion of his spouse, unless he acted under compulsion that would establish a defense under this section.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 8.06.  ENTRAPMENT.  (a)  It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.
(b)  In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 8.07.  AGE AFFECTING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.  (a)  A person may not be prosecuted for or convicted of any offense that the person committed when younger than 15 years of age except:
(1)  perjury and aggravated perjury when it appears by proof that the person had sufficient discretion to understand the nature and obligation of an oath;
(2)  a violation of a penal statute cognizable under Chapter 729, Transportation Code, except for conduct for which the person convicted may be sentenced to imprisonment or confinement in jail;
(3)  a violation of a motor vehicle traffic ordinance of an incorporated city or town in this state;
(4)  a misdemeanor punishable by fine only;
(5)  a violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision;
(6)  a violation of a penal statute that is, or is a lesser included offense of, a capital felony, an aggravated controlled substance felony, or a felony of the first degree for which the person is transferred to the court under Section 54.02, Family Code, for prosecution if the person committed the offense when 14 years of age or older; or
(7)  a capital felony or an offense under Section 19.02 for which the person is transferred to the court under Section 54.02(j)(2)(A), Family Code.
(b)  Unless the juvenile court waives jurisdiction under Section 54.02, Family Code, and certifies the individual for criminal prosecution or the juvenile court has previously waived jurisdiction under that section and certified the individual for criminal prosecution, a person may not be prosecuted for or convicted of any offense committed before reaching 17 years of age except an offense described by Subsections (a)(1)-(5).
(c)  No person may, in any case, be punished by death for an offense committed while the person was younger than 18 years.

Houston Criminal Attorney Andy Nolen has over 22 years  experience representing persons accused of committing criminal violations of State and Federal law.

Houston Criminal Attorney Andy Nolen treats  every person they represent as if they were a friend and neighbor.   When you call, likely Andy Nolen will answer your call himself.  You will be dealing with Attorneys, not secretaries, assistants, or answering machines.

If we can be of any assistance, or you just want to talk about your situation, please call  Houston Criminal Attorney Andy Nolen at 832-480-8951.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

ATTORNEY ANDY NOLEN: TEXAS PENAL CODE BURDEN OF PROOF

The Jury (TV serial)Image via Wikipedia
PENAL CODE

TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF

Sec. 2.01.  PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 2.02.  EXCEPTION.  (a)  An exception to an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an exception to the application of . . . ."
(b)  The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception.
(c)  This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective date of this code.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 2.03.  DEFENSE.  (a)  A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b)  The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c)  The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d)  If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e)  A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 2.04.  AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.  (a)  An affirmative defense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b)  The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c)  The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d)  If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 2.05.  PRESUMPTION.  (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (b), when this code or another penal law establishes a presumption with respect to any fact, it has the following consequences:
(1)  if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2)  if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as follows:
(A)  that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
(B)  that if such facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find;
(C)  that even though the jury may find the existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and
(D)  if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption for any purpose.
(b)  When this code or another penal law establishes a presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it has the following consequences:
(1)  if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2)  if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the presumption, that:
(A)  the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist;
(B)  if the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C)  even though the jury may find that the presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D)  if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 912, ch. 342, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 288, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005.