CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF

State Codes and Statutes

Back To Homepage

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Texas > Penal-code > Title-1-introductory-provisions > Chapter-2-burden-of-proof

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.

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.

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.

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;

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;

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.

State Codes and Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

Loading..

Loading, Please Wait!