BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 108

By: Plesa

Criminal Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The bill author has informed the committee that body armor can provide criminals with a tactical advantage, making it harder for law enforcement to employ effective strategies to apprehend suspects during the commission of a crime or when fleeing a scene. This issue has been highlighted in numerous high-profile violent incidents, such as the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs shooting, and the 2022 Boulder shooting, according to news outlets such as The Denver Post, The Washington Post, and NPR. The bill author has informed the committee that while state law currently prohibits individuals with felony convictions from possessing body armor, there is no state law against the use of body armor during the commission of a crime. C.S.H.B. 108 seeks to address this issue by requiring an affirmative finding relating to the use of body armor during the commission of certain offenses in the trial of the offense and by increasing the punishment for an offense in which such an affirmative finding is made in the trial.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill expressly does one or more of the following: creates a criminal offense, increases the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or changes the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 108 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require the judge in a trial of an offense against the person punishable as a third degree felony or any higher category of offense, other than a first degree felony, if at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, the judge or the jury, whichever is the trier of fact, determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used metal or body armor during the commission of the offense, to make an affirmative finding of fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of the case. The bill defines "metal or body armor" by reference as any body covering manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of protecting a person against gunfire.

C.S.H.B. 108 amends the Penal Code to increase the punishment for an offense against the person to the punishment prescribed for the next highest category of offense if such an affirmative finding is made in the trial of the offense.

C.S.H.B. 108 applies only to an offense committed on or after the bill's effective date. An offense committed before the bill's effective date is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For these purposes, an offense was committed before the bill's effective date if any element of the offense occurred before that date.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 108 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

While the introduced and substitute both require a judge to make an affirmative finding of fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of the case, the introduced applied the requirement to an offense against the person punishable as a Class A misdemeanor or any higher category of offense, other than a first degree felony, whereas the substitute applies the requirement instead to an offense against the person punishable as a third degree felony or any higher category of offense, other than a first degree felony. Accordingly, the substitute does not include the provision of the introduced that increased the minimum term of confinement to 180 days for an offense that is a Class A misdemeanor and for which the affirmative finding is made.