Texas House Bill HB1919

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/28/11
• Introduced: 2/28/11
• Refer: 3/7/11
• Report Pass: 4/28/11

Caption

Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of cruelty to nonlivestock animals under certain circumstances.

Impact

The impact of this bill is significant as it alters existing legal standards concerning animal cruelty. By explicitly allowing defenses based on fear of injury or legitimate scientific experimentation, the bill could lead to more cases being dismissed on these grounds. As the law stands, the lack of these defenses could lead to unjust prosecutions of individuals whose intentions were not malicious but rather protective or for the advancement of knowledge. This makes the bill a notable change in the legal landscape regarding how animal cruelty is addressed in Texas.

Summary

House Bill 1919 addresses defenses to prosecution for offenses related to cruelty against nonlivestock animals under specific circumstances. The bill amends Section 42.092 of the Texas Penal Code to include a provision where a defendant can claim defense if they had a reasonable fear of bodily injury from a dangerous wild animal or a dog. Additionally, if the actor was engaged in bona fide experimentation for scientific research, this may also serve as a defense against prosecution for animal cruelty offenses. These provisions aim to provide a balance between animal welfare laws and the rights of individuals who may need to act in self-defense or for legitimate research purposes.

Contention

While the bill seeks to clarify defenses in animal cruelty cases, it may raise concerns among animal rights advocates. There could be fears that the provisions allowing for defenses based on fear or research might be exploited to justify harmful actions against animals. Critics may argue that such defenses dilute the strength of animal protection laws and could potentially lead to increased incidents of cruelty under the guise of self-defense or legitimate scientific inquiry. Therefore, the conversation around HB1919 reflects a significant tension between ensuring public safety and protecting animal welfare.