LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT STATEMENT
 
82ND LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
 
March 21, 2011

TO:
Honorable Pete Gallego, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
 
FROM:
John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
 
IN RE:
HB1856 by Woolley (Relating to the prosecution of and punishment for the offense of tampering with a witness.), As Introduced

The bill would amend the Penal Code as it relates to the offense of tampering with a witness.  Under the provisions of the bill, tampering with a witness would be punishable as a third degree felony unless it is part of the prosecution of a criminal case.  As specified by the bill, the offense would be punishable as the most serious offense charged in the case.  If the most serious offense charged in the case is a capital felony then tampering with a witness would be punishable as a first degree felony. At present, tampering with a witness is a state jail felony.

A state jail felony is punishable by confinement in a state jail for a term from 180 days to 2 years and, in addition to confinement, an optional fine not to exceed $10,000 or Class A Misdemeanor punishment (mandatory post conviction community supervision). A felony of the third degree is punishable by confinement in prison for a term from 2 to 10 years and, in addition to confinement, an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. A felony of the first degree is punishable by confinement in prison for life or a term from 5 to 99 years and, in addition to confinement, an optional fine not to exceed $10,000.
 
Increasing the penalty for any criminal offense is expected to result in increased demands upon the correctional resources of counties or of the State due to longer terms of probation, or longer terms of confinement in county jails or prison. In fiscal year 2010, less than 20 people were arrested, placed on felony probation, or admitted to state jail for tampering with a witness.  For this analysis, it is assumed the number of offenders convicted under this statute would not result in a significant impact on the programs and workload of State corrections agencies or on the demand for resources and services of those agencies.


Source Agencies:
LBB Staff:
JOB, GG, LM