BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 3724 By: Herrero Criminal Jurisprudence Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Informed observers note that current law allows for the reexamination of certain cases based on new scientific evidence and requires a court, in finding whether new scientific evidence exists, to consider whether the scientific knowledge or method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed. The observers contend that a recent Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion held that a change in the scientific knowledge of a testifying expert would be a basis for habeas relief under the law. C.S.H.B. 3724 seeks to codify this decision. CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 3724 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require a court that is hearing an application for a writ of habeas corpus based on certain issues with respect to scientific evidence that either was not available to be offered by a convicted person at trial or contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the state at trial, in making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, to consider, among other possible changes, whether a testifying expert's scientific knowledge has changed since the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application, or since the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application. The bill specifies that the change in scientific knowledge that the court is required to consider is a change in the field of scientific knowledge. EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2015. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE While C.S.H.B. 3724 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill. INTRODUCED HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SECTION 1. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows: (e) In making the finding described by Subsection (d), the court shall consider whether the opinion of an expert who testified at the person's trial regarding the relevant scientific evidence has changed since the applicable trial date or dates. SECTION 1. Article 11.073(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows: (d) In making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, the court shall consider whether the field of scientific knowledge, a testifying expert's scientific knowledge, or a scientific method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed since: (1) the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application; or (2) the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application. SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. Same as introduced version.
BILL ANALYSIS
# BILL ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 3724
By: Herrero
Criminal Jurisprudence
Committee Report (Substituted)
C.S.H.B. 3724
By: Herrero
Criminal Jurisprudence
Committee Report (Substituted)
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Informed observers note that current law allows for the reexamination of certain cases based on new scientific evidence and requires a court, in finding whether new scientific evidence exists, to consider whether the scientific knowledge or method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed. The observers contend that a recent Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion held that a change in the scientific knowledge of a testifying expert would be a basis for habeas relief under the law. C.S.H.B. 3724 seeks to codify this decision.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 3724 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require a court that is hearing an application for a writ of habeas corpus based on certain issues with respect to scientific evidence that either was not available to be offered by a convicted person at trial or contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the state at trial, in making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, to consider, among other possible changes, whether a testifying expert's scientific knowledge has changed since the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application, or since the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application. The bill specifies that the change in scientific knowledge that the court is required to consider is a change in the field of scientific knowledge.
EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2015.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE While C.S.H.B. 3724 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
INTRODUCED HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SECTION 1. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows: (e) In making the finding described by Subsection (d), the court shall consider whether the opinion of an expert who testified at the person's trial regarding the relevant scientific evidence has changed since the applicable trial date or dates. SECTION 1. Article 11.073(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows: (d) In making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, the court shall consider whether the field of scientific knowledge, a testifying expert's scientific knowledge, or a scientific method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed since: (1) the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application; or (2) the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application. SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. Same as introduced version. INTRODUCED HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SECTION 1. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows: (e) In making the finding described by Subsection (d), the court shall consider whether the opinion of an expert who testified at the person's trial regarding the relevant scientific evidence has changed since the applicable trial date or dates. SECTION 1. Article 11.073(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows: (d) In making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, the court shall consider whether the field of scientific knowledge, a testifying expert's scientific knowledge, or a scientific method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed since: (1) the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application; or (2) the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application. SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. Same as introduced version.
INTRODUCED HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
SECTION 1. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows: (e) In making the finding described by Subsection (d), the court shall consider whether the opinion of an expert who testified at the person's trial regarding the relevant scientific evidence has changed since the applicable trial date or dates. SECTION 1. Article 11.073(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows: (d) In making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, the court shall consider whether the field of scientific knowledge, a testifying expert's scientific knowledge, or a scientific method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed since: (1) the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application; or (2) the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. Same as introduced version.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Informed observers note that current law allows for the reexamination of certain cases based on new scientific evidence and requires a court, in finding whether new scientific evidence exists, to consider whether the scientific knowledge or method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed. The observers contend that a recent Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion held that a change in the scientific knowledge of a testifying expert would be a basis for habeas relief under the law. C.S.H.B. 3724 seeks to codify this decision.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 3724 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require a court that is hearing an application for a writ of habeas corpus based on certain issues with respect to scientific evidence that either was not available to be offered by a convicted person at trial or contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the state at trial, in making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, to consider, among other possible changes, whether a testifying expert's scientific knowledge has changed since the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application, or since the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application. The bill specifies that the change in scientific knowledge that the court is required to consider is a change in the field of scientific knowledge.
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2015.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 3724 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
INTRODUCED HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
SECTION 1. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows: (e) In making the finding described by Subsection (d), the court shall consider whether the opinion of an expert who testified at the person's trial regarding the relevant scientific evidence has changed since the applicable trial date or dates. SECTION 1. Article 11.073(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows: (d) In making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, the court shall consider whether the field of scientific knowledge, a testifying expert's scientific knowledge, or a scientific method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed since: (1) the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application; or (2) the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. Same as introduced version.
INTRODUCED
HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
SECTION 1. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
(e) In making the finding described by Subsection (d), the court shall consider whether the opinion of an expert who testified at the person's trial regarding the relevant scientific evidence has changed since the applicable trial date or dates.
SECTION 1. Article 11.073(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows:
(d) In making a finding as to whether relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before a specific date, the court shall consider whether the field of scientific knowledge, a testifying expert's scientific knowledge, or a scientific method on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed since:
(1) the applicable trial date or dates, for a determination made with respect to an original application; or
(2) the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed, for a determination made with respect to a subsequent application.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015.
SECTION 2. Same as introduced version.