This website will be unavailable from Friday, April 26, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. through Monday, April 29, 2024 at 7:00 a.m. due to data center maintenance.

  82R471 GCB-D
 
  By: Gallego H.B. No. 219
 
 
 
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
 
AN ACT
  relating to the electronic recording and admissibility of certain
  custodial interrogations.
         BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
         SECTION 1.  Chapter 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
  amended by adding Article 2.31 to read as follows:
         Art. 2.31.  ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF CUSTODIAL
  INTERROGATIONS. (a) In this article:
               (1)  "Custodial interrogation" means any investigative
  questioning, other than routine questions associated with booking,
  by a  peace officer during which:
                     (A)  a reasonable person in the position of the
  person being interrogated would consider himself or herself to be
  in custody; and
                     (B)  a question is asked that is reasonably likely
  to elicit an incriminating response.
               (2)  "Law enforcement agency" means an agency of the
  state, or of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision
  of this state, that employs peace officers who, in the routine
  performance of the officers' duties, conduct custodial
  interrogations of individuals suspected of committing criminal
  offenses.
               (3)  "Place of detention" means a police station or
  other building that is a place of operation for a law enforcement
  agency, including a municipal police department or county sheriff's
  department, and is owned or operated by the law enforcement agency
  for the purpose of detaining individuals in connection with the
  suspected violation of a penal law. The term does not include a
  courthouse.
         (b)  Unless good cause exists that makes electronic
  recording infeasible, a law enforcement agency shall make a
  complete, contemporaneous, audio or audiovisual electronic
  recording of any custodial interrogation that occurs in a place of
  detention and is of a person suspected of committing or charged with
  the commission of an offense under:
               (1)  Section 19.02, Penal Code (murder);
               (2)  Section 19.03, Penal Code (capital murder);
               (3)  Section 20.03, Penal Code (kidnapping);
               (4)  Section 20.04, Penal Code (aggravated
  kidnapping);
               (5)  Section 21.02, Penal Code (continuous sexual abuse
  of young child or children);
               (6)  Section 21.11, Penal Code (indecency with a
  child);
               (7)  Section 21.12, Penal Code (improper relationship
  between educator and student);
               (8)  Section 22.011, Penal Code (sexual assault);
               (9)  Section 22.021, Penal Code (aggravated sexual
  assault); or
               (10)  Section 43.25, Penal Code (sexual performance by
  a child).
         (c)  For purposes of Subsection (b), an electronic recording
  of a custodial interrogation is complete only if the recording
  begins at or before the time the person being interrogated receives
  a warning described by Section 2(a), Article 38.22, and continues,
  without interruption, until the time the interrogation ceases.
         (d)  For purposes of Subsection (b), good cause that makes
  electronic recording infeasible includes the following:
               (1)  the person being interrogated refused to respond
  or cooperate in a custodial interrogation at which an audio or
  audiovisual recording was made, provided that:
                     (A)  a contemporaneous recording of the refusal
  was made; or
                     (B)  the peace officer or agent of the law
  enforcement agency conducting the interrogation attempted, in good
  faith, to record the person's refusal but the person was unwilling
  to have the refusal recorded, and the peace officer or agent
  contemporaneously, in writing, documented the refusal;
               (2)  the statement was not made exclusively as the
  result of a custodial interrogation, including a statement that was
  made spontaneously by the accused and not in response to a question
  by a peace officer;
               (3)  the peace officer or agent of the law enforcement
  agency conducting the interrogation attempted, in good faith, to
  record the interrogation but the recording equipment did not
  function, the officer or agent inadvertently operated the equipment
  incorrectly, or the equipment malfunctioned or stopped operating
  without the knowledge of the officer or agent;
               (4)  exigent public safety concerns prevented or
  rendered infeasible the making of an audio or audiovisual recording
  of the statement; or
               (5)  the peace officer or agent of the law enforcement
  agency conducting the interrogation reasonably believed at the time
  the interrogation commenced that the person being interrogated was
  not taken into custody for or being interrogated concerning the
  commission of an offense listed in Subsection (b).
         (e)  A law enforcement agency shall preserve an electronic
  recording described by Subsection (b) until the later of the date on
  which:
               (1)  any conviction for an offense that is the subject
  of the interrogation or that results from the interrogation is
  final, all direct appeals of the case are exhausted, and the time to
  file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus has expired; or
               (2)  the prosecution of the offense that is the subject
  of the interrogation or that arises from the interrogation is
  barred by law.
         (f)  The attorney representing the state shall provide to the
  defendant, in a timely manner and not later than the 60th day before
  the date the trial begins, a copy of an electronic recording
  described by Subsection (b).
         (g)  A recording of a custodial interrogation that complies
  with this section is exempt from public disclosure except as
  provided by Section 552.108, Government Code.
         SECTION 2.  Chapter 38, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
  amended by adding Article 38.24 to read as follows:
         Art. 38.24.  USE OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE CONCERNING ELECTRONIC
  RECORDING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS. (a) Evidence of compliance
  or noncompliance with Article 2.31 concerning the electronic
  recording of a custodial interrogation is relevant and admissible
  before the trier of fact.
         (b)  Evidence of compliance with Article 2.31 concerning the
  electronic recording of a custodial interrogation is not a
  condition precedent to the admissibility of a defendant's statement
  under Article 38.23, another provision of this chapter, or another
  law.
         (c)  If the statement of a person suspected of committing or
  charged with the commission of an offense listed in Article 2.31(b)
  that is made by the person during a custodial interrogation
  conducted in a place of detention is admitted in evidence during
  trial, and if an electronic recording of the complete interrogation
  is not available, the court:
               (1)  if the court is the trier of fact, may consider the
  absence of an electronic recording of the interrogation in
  evaluating the evidence relating to and resulting from the
  interrogation; and
               (2)  if the jury is the trier of fact, shall on request
  of the defendant instruct the jury that:
                     (A)  it is the policy of this state to
  electronically record custodial interrogations of persons
  suspected of having committed an offense listed in Article 2.31(b);
  and
                     (B)  the jury may consider the absence of an
  electronic recording of the interrogation in evaluating the
  evidence relating to and resulting from the interrogation.
         (d)  The court may refuse to give the jury instruction
  described by Subsection (c)(2) if the attorney representing the
  state offers proof satisfactory to the court that:
               (1)  good cause, as described by Article 2.31(d),
  existed that made electronic recording of a custodial interrogation
  infeasible; or
               (2)  the law enforcement agency that failed to
  electronically record the interrogation acted in good faith at the
  time the agency failed to make the recording.
         SECTION 3.  Article 38.24, Code of Criminal Procedure, as
  added by this Act, applies to the use of a statement resulting from
  a custodial interrogation that occurs on or after September 1,
  2012, regardless of whether the criminal offense giving rise to
  that interrogation is committed before, on, or after that date.
         SECTION 4.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
 
  COMMITTEE AMENDMENT NO. 1
         Amend H.B. No. 219 (introduced version) as follows:
         (1)  Between pages 2 and 3, insert the following:
         (b-1)  If, during a custodial interrogation of an offense
  other than an offense listed in Subsection (b), the person being
  interrogated discloses information that causes the peace officer to
  have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has committed
  an offense that requires an electronic recording under that
  subsection, the officer may continue the interrogation, and good
  cause exists making electronic recording infeasible, as provided by
  Subsection(d)(5).
         (2)  On page 3, lines 4-5, strike ", without interruption,".
         (3)  On page 3, line 5, between "ceases" and the underlined
  period, insert the following:
         , except that the recording may contain one or more pauses if
  the pauses occur to:
               (1)  ensure that the recording complies with Subsection
  (b-1); or
               (2)  accommodate a temporary break from interrogation.
         (4)  On page 5, line 5, after the underlined period, insert
  the following:
         Evidence of a pause in the recording is not admissible based
  solely on the existence of the pause..
  Carter