HBA-EDN, AMW H.B. 236 77(R)    BILL ANALYSIS


Office of House Bill AnalysisH.B. 236
By: Hinojosa
Criminal Jurisprudence
2/18/2001
Introduced



BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

In 1989, the United States Supreme Court decided in Penry v. Lynaugh that
executing people who have mental retardation does not constitute cruel and
unusual punishment.  The decision did, however, provide for jury
instructions to incorporate evidence of mental retardation as a possible
mitigating factor in the imposition of the death penalty.   

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not outlawed the execution of persons
with mental retardation, there is some concern among Texans that the
execution of these persons is unjust because persons with mental
retardation may be less culpable for their crimes or may not have the
capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.  House Bill 236
enables defense counsel to request a hearing to determine whether a
defendant had mental retardation at the time of the commission of the
offense and prohibits a court from sentencing a person with mental
retardation to death.   

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does
not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state
officer, department, agency, or institution. 

ANALYSIS

House Bill 236 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to prohibit the court
from sentencing to death a defendant who, at the time of commission of a
capital offense, was a person with mental retardation.  The bill authorizes
the counsel for a defendant in a capital case, at any time before the trial
begins, to request that the judge hold a hearing to determine whether the
defendant was a person with mental retardation at the time of the
commission of the alleged offense.  The bill requires the court, on receipt
of a request for a hearing, to notify all interested parties of the request
and to schedule a hearing on the issue of mental retardation.  H.B. 236
specifies that at the hearing the burden is on the defendant to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was a person with mental
retardation at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, and
authorizes the state to offer evidence to rebut the defendant's claim.  

If the court finds the defendant was a person with mental retardation and
the defendant is subsequently convicted of the offense, the bill requires
the court to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.  If the court
finds the defendant was not a person with mental retardation at the time of
the commission of the alleged offense, the bill requires the court to
conduct the trial in the same manner as if a hearing on the issue of mental
retardation had not been held and prohibits the jury from being informed of
the finding that the defendant was not a person with mental retardation.
The bill also authorizes the defendant to present at trial evidence of
mental disability. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2001.