Bill Text: TX HB967 | 2013-2014 | 83rd Legislature | Introduced
Bill Title: Relating to the procedure for an application for a writ of habeas corpus based on relevant scientific evidence.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2013-04-23 - Left pending in committee [HB967 Detail]
Download: Texas-2013-HB967-Introduced.html
| 83R4401 MAW-D | ||
| By: Turner of Harris | H.B. No. 967 | |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| relating to the procedure for an application for a writ of habeas | ||
| corpus based on relevant scientific evidence. | ||
| BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: | ||
| SECTION 1. Chapter 11, Code of Criminal Procedure, is | ||
| amended by adding Article 11.073 to read as follows: | ||
| Art. 11.073. PROCEDURE RELATED TO CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC | ||
| EVIDENCE. (a) This article applies to relevant scientific evidence | ||
| that: | ||
| (1) was not available to be offered by a convicted | ||
| person at the convicted person's trial; or | ||
| (2) discredits scientific evidence relied on by the | ||
| state at trial. | ||
| (b) A court may grant a convicted person relief on an | ||
| application for a writ of habeas corpus if: | ||
| (1) the convicted person files an application, in the | ||
| manner provided by Article 11.07, 11.071, or 11.072, containing | ||
| specific facts indicating that: | ||
| (A) relevant scientific evidence is currently | ||
| available and was not available at the time of the convicted | ||
| person's trial because the evidence was not ascertainable through | ||
| the exercise of reasonable diligence by the convicted person before | ||
| the date of or during the convicted person's trial; and | ||
| (B) the scientific evidence would be admissible | ||
| under the Texas Rules of Evidence at a trial held on the date of the | ||
| application; and | ||
| (2) the court makes the findings described by | ||
| Subdivisions (1)(A) and (B) and also finds that, had the scientific | ||
| evidence been presented at trial, it is reasonably probable that | ||
| the person would not have been convicted. | ||
| (c) For purposes of Section 4(a)(1), Article 11.07, Section | ||
| 5(a)(1), Article 11.071, and Section 9(a), Article 11.072, a claim | ||
| or issue could not have been presented previously in an original | ||
| application or in a previously considered application if the claim | ||
| or issue is based on relevant scientific evidence that was not | ||
| ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence by the | ||
| convicted person on or before the date on which the original | ||
| application or a previously considered application, as applicable, | ||
| was filed. | ||
| (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 scientific knowledge or 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. The change in law made by this Act applies only | ||
| to an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed on or after the | ||
| effective date of this Act. An application for a writ of habeas | ||
| corpus filed before the effective date of this Act is governed by | ||
| the law in effect at the time the application was filed, and the | ||
| former law is continued in effect for that purpose. | ||
| SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013. | ||
