| Old | New | Differences | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 2015S0464-T 03/12/15 | |
| 2 | 2 | By: Huffines S.B. No. 1676 | |
| 3 | 3 | ||
| 4 | 4 | ||
| 5 | 5 | A BILL TO BE ENTITLED | |
| 6 | 6 | AN ACT | |
| 7 | 7 | relating to the state's burden of proof in certain criminal asset | |
| 8 | 8 | forfeiture proceedings. | |
| 9 | 9 | BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: | |
| 10 | 10 | SECTION 1. Articles 59.05(b) and (d), Code of Criminal | |
| 11 | 11 | Procedure, are amended to read as follows: | |
| 12 | 12 | (b) All cases under this chapter shall proceed to trial in | |
| 13 | 13 | the same manner as in other civil cases. The state has the burden of | |
| 14 | 14 | proving by clear and convincing [a preponderance of the] evidence | |
| 15 | 15 | that property is subject to forfeiture. | |
| 16 | 16 | (d) A final conviction for an underlying offense is [not] a | |
| 17 | 17 | requirement for forfeiture under this chapter. [An owner or | |
| 18 | 18 | interest holder may present evidence of a dismissal or acquittal of | |
| 19 | 19 | an underlying offense in a forfeiture proceeding, and evidence of | |
| 20 | 20 | an acquittal raises a presumption that the property or interest | |
| 21 | 21 | that is the subject of the hearing is nonforfeitable. This | |
| 22 | 22 | presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the owner or interest | |
| 23 | 23 | holder knew or should have known that the property was contraband.] | |
| 24 | 24 | SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015. |