Does anyone think the proposed amendment to HB 1289 would actually change anything? I will be interested to see how the Bill Analysis for this reads because it must be intended to alter things in some way, but the language seems to merely restate the same concept.

This bill will prevent a deadly weapon finding in DWI, Intoxication Manslaughter, Intoxication Assault, Injury to a Child (by criminal negligence or recklessness) because the state could no longer obtain a DW finding without evidence of intent to use the DW to kill or cause SBI.

This is a criminal defense attorney bill. A similar one was filed last session.

Prosecutors should strongly oppose it and notify groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving that dangerous individuals will be released early on parole if this law changes.

I agree, John... This one's a stinker for the folks in the white hats. It's on the TDCAA Bills To Watch list. As you probably know, we can sign up to get an email sent when there is a change or action on a particular bill that we are watching. I've put this one on my list. Contacting MADD is a good idea but we also need to really start emailing and calling legislators when this bill hits a committee...

Having re-read the language over and over, I see what you mean. In fact, it appears to me it is even worse. A guy carrying a knife commits a robbery. He is carrying the knife with intent to use it (if necessary) and it is clearly capable of causing death or serious bodily injury if used in a certain way. But he does not use it, maybe just tells victim he has it. How do you prove he "intended to use with intent to cause"? Hard enough to infer one intent-- but two, when not used?

I was a DEfense attorney when Tyra and Walker came down and thought then they represented a strained construction of the statute. But this would certainly be an unwise way to try to correct those cases, assuming the State's attorneys are using that construction in an abusive manner.

The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will hold a hearing on this bill on Tuesday, March 18. Interested parties should attend.

One of the best ways to attack a bill is to provide the Legislature with specific examples of how the change would prevent us from protecting the public. And this bill should provide plenty of examples.

For example, in Travis County, there was a notoritous case involving a criminal by the name of Gerald Zuliani, who tortured and eventually killed a child. A jury eventually convicted him of only reckless criminal conduct (hard to believe, but that's the nature of these circumstantial cases).

Zuliani was called many names, all of which he deserved, but there was great frustration that he couldn't be sentenced to life in prison. Nonetheless, at least he could receive a deadly weapon finding and thereby spend much longer in prison.

Under Rep. Moreno's bill, such an affirmative finding would be impossible, even though a jury had found the defendant caused the child's death. I simply can not think of a more unjust change in the law.

In addition, every felony prosecutor has seen a video in which a criminal used a car in a manner that either did kill or nearly killed someone. Perhaps it was an evading or DWI or intoxication manslaughter or intoxication assault case. Under Rep. Moreno's bill, a deadly finding would not be possible. Again, I can't think of a more unjust change in the law.

So, what you can do is make a copy of that videotape. Send it to your state senator or representative. Explain to them that prosecutors, victims, MADD, every social worker, and anyone who cares for public safety should be against Rep. Moreno's bill.

Or, summarize a case you prosecuted and explain how you won't be able to protect the public if this bill passes. Make this case real, so that your state senator or representative can talk about a real example during a committee hearing or on the floor.

Moreno did not ask for a vote on his bill and Keith Hampton seemed to acknowledge the bill was indeed designed to ameliorate the penalty for use of all unintended weapons (basically any crime with a reckless or lower mental state). He specifically suggested intoxication manslaughter should retain the possibility of such a finding, by an amendment to that statute. My question is, if a committee substitute is offered, is there an opportunity for testimony on the new language (which apparently will be quite different)? Anyone think Moreno will just give up at this point?

I feel like the testimony on this bill was mostly favorable to us. It was one of few bright spots in an otherwise long, depressing day.

Thanks for being there, John. Don't worry, this will soon pass.

Martin, in answer to your question, generally there is only one hearing in the House and Senate. Follow up amendments, etc., just appear and don't create opportunities for additional hearings.

That's why it is important to watch a bill after it leaves a committee. It can morph pretty quickly.

That's the way I understood it, but was wondering if there were any exceptions, especially when the morphing is dramatic. Hard to believe a Republican leg would pass a bill rejected even by Demos so many times before.