Texas House Bill HB1856

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 5/2/11
• Introduced: 2/25/11
• Voted on by House: 5/15/11
• Refer: 3/7/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/21/11
• Report Pass: 4/26/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/25/11
• Engrossed: 5/15/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 5/16/11
• Report Pass: 5/21/11
• Enrolled: 5/27/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to the prosecution of and punishment for the offense of tampering with a witness.

Impact

The provisions of HB 1856 indicate a significant impact on existing laws related to witness tampering. By establishing harsher penalties for tampering involving more severe charges, the bill is designed to deter potential offenders from interfering in legal proceedings. This may lead to more robust witness cooperation in trials and investigations, thereby improving the efficacy of the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the law also provides prosecutors the flexibility to charge defendants under either this statute or other laws applicable to their conduct, which can enhance the prosecutorial toolkit against witness tampering.

Summary

House Bill 1856 focuses on the prosecution and punishment for the offense of tampering with a witness in the state of Texas. The bill proposes amendments to Section 36.05 of the Penal Code, addressing how tampering is classified based on the seriousness of the underlying criminal case. Notably, it categorizes the offense as a third-degree felony generally but escalates it to a first-degree felony if the most serious offense charged in the related criminal case is a capital felony. This shift in classification aims to impose stricter penalties on those who attempt to interfere with witness testimony, reflecting a legislative intent to enhance the integrity of the judicial process by protecting witnesses from intimidation or coercion.

Contention

While the bill generally received support for its aim to strengthen witness protections, there may be points of contention regarding how the escalated penalties could affect the accused individuals' rights. Critics may argue that the broader definitions and increased felony classifications could lead to harsher consequences for individuals accused of tampering, potentially resulting in unjust outcomes in cases where witness tampering is not egregious. Moreover, the implications for international and legal standards of justice could come into play, with debates arising over what constitutes appropriate punishment for such offenses.