HBA-SEP, EDN H.B. 1464 77(R) BILL ANALYSIS Office of House Bill AnalysisH.B. 1464 By: Dunnam Criminal Jurisprudence 3/12/2001 Introduced BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Current law, in response to the United States Supreme Court decision of Batson v. Kentucky, prohibits the use of peremptory challenges on the basis of race but does not extend the prohibition to include gender or religion. Including gender would make state law consistent with the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals case of Fritz v. State and J.E.B. v. Alabama which prohibit the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges on the basis of gender. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in Casarez v. State, decided not to extend Batson to include religion and the Supreme Court has not addressed the use of religion as a peremptory challenge. However, residents of Texas should not be denied the opportunity to serve on a jury solely because of the person's religious affiliation unless there is some showing that an individual's religious belief(s) would prevent the individual from being a fair and impartial juror in the case actually being tried. House Bill 1464 prohibits the exercise of peremptory challenges in a criminal case to exclude a person from a jury on the basis of the person's gender or religion. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. ANALYSIS House Bill 1464 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require the court in a criminal case to grant a defendant's motion to dismiss the array if the defendant alleges and the court determines that the attorney representing the state exercised peremptory challenges to exclude persons from the jury on the basis of gender or religion, and the defendant has offered evidence to support the allegation. If the defendant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the attorney representing the state to give an explanation for the challenges that is neutral with respect to gender or religion. A court is required to call a new array in a case if the court determines that the attorney representing the state challenged prospective jurors on the basis of gender or religion. EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2001.