TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 10:42 am Penal Code Title 1 Chapter 2 Burden of Proof

Sec. 2.02. EXCEPTION. (a) An exception to an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an exception to the application of . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception.

(c) This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective date of this code.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.

(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 2.04. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.2.htm

ELB wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 11:40 am Yes, an exception is stronger protection than a defense to prosecution or affirmative defense.

RoyGBiv wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 7:01 pm
So I'm not crazy? Good to know! Thanks.

RoyGBiv wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 9:48 am FYI... Signed by Gov Abbott yesterday. Effective 1-Sept.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... Bill=HB302

Senate 25/6
House 101/44/2(Present)

Papa_Tiger wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 3:35 pm Pretty sure this only applies to condominium units where an individual owns a particular unit and has a share in ownership of the common areas, not apartment complexes which are wholly owned by a corporation or other entity. The condo management or association cannot legally forbid carrying for the owner, tenant or guests.

Again, I do not believe this applies to rental apartments where there is no individual ownership OR to assisted living facilities where the tenant is renting a unit from a corporation.