Goto previous pageGoto next page
pg. 5

Texas Laws | Penal Code
PENAL CODE
TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

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. (166)

Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION. (167)(Text)

(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: (168)

(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 (169)

(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: (170)

(A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; (171)

(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; (172)

(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 (173)

(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. (174)

(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: (175)

(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 (176)

(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: (177)

(A) the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist; (178)

(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; (179)

(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 (180)

(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. (181)

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. (182)

Amended by: (183)

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 288 (H.B. 823), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005. (184)

CHAPTER 3. MULTIPLE PROSECUTIONS (185)(Text)

Sec. 3.01. DEFINITION. (186)(Text)

In this chapter, "criminal episode" means the commission of two or more offenses, regardless of whether the harm is directed toward or inflicted upon more than one person or item of property, under the following circumstances: (187)

(1) the offenses are committed pursuant to the same transaction or pursuant to two or more transactions that are connected or constitute a common scheme or plan; or (188)

(2) the offenses are the repeated commission of the same or similar offenses. (189)

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 387, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. (190)

Sec. 3.02. CONSOLIDATION AND JOINDER OF PROSECUTIONS. (191)(Text)

(a) A defendant may be prosecuted in a single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. (192)

(b) When a single criminal action is based on more than one charging instrument within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the state shall file written notice of the action not less than 30 days prior to the trial. (193)

(c) If a judgment of guilt is reversed, set aside, or vacated, and a new trial ordered, the state may not prosecute in a single criminal action in the new trial any offense not joined in the former prosecution unless evidence to establish probable guilt for that offense was not known to the appropriate prosecuting official at the time the first prosecution commenced. (194)

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. (195)

Sec. 3.03. SENTENCES FOR OFFENSES ARISING OUT OF SAME CRIMINAL EPISODE. (196)(Text)

(a) When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced. Except as provided by Subsection (b), the sentences shall run concurrently. (197)

Goto previous page5Goto next page

  

Our Mission
Objective

Our mission is to provide citizens free access to the laws and codes of their state utilizing a unique search engine that matches clients with qualified legal professionals who can help with specific issues.

Our goal is to do this in a manner that promotes open government and freedom of information, while providing attorneys with valuable tools to connect with qualified prospects in need of professional services.

Ignorance Is No Excuse
Your Right To Know The Law

All citizens have a right to have access to the laws that govern them. Citizen awareness and participation in government is fundamental to ensuring a sound democracy.

Although unfettered access to the law is a fundamental right to all citizens, there is no substitute for experienced legal counsel.

We do not recommend self-representation. We do, however, recognize that in an age where people routinely research legal matters online using everything from a smartphone to their xbox, both attorneys and clients alike can benefit from this resource.