HBA-EDN C.S.H.B. 653 77(R)BILL ANALYSIS


Office of House Bill AnalysisC.S.H.B. 653
By: Najera
Criminal Jurisprudence
5/4/2001
Committee Report (Substituted)



BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

Texans have become increasingly concerned with cases of cruel and violent
acts perpetrated on innocent pets and animals.  Research has confirmed a
correlation between violence against animals and violence toward humans.
In one case of animal cruelty, the prosecutor pressed felony charges of
theft instead of animal cruelty because current law only provides for a
misdemeanor for an offense of animal cruelty.  Such penalties may not be
sufficient to deter future offenses of animal cruelty.  C.S.H.B. 653
modifies the penalties for such offenses. 

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

C.S.H.B. 653 amends the Penal Code to provide that a person commits an
offense of animal cruelty if the person acts with criminal negligence,
rather than with intent or knowledge, except that a person commits an
offense if the person intentionally or knowingly tortures or overworks an
animal or kills, injures, or administers poison to certain animals
belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective
consent.  The bill also provides that the punishment for an offense of
animal cruelty committed with criminal negligence is a state jail felony if
the person has previously been convicted one time, rather than two times,
and that an offense committed intentionally or knowingly is a state jail
felony, except that such an offense is a third degree felony if the person
has previously been convicted two times for animal cruelty.  C.S.H.B. 653
provides that it is an exception to the application of these provisions
that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and
otherwise lawful use of an animal if that use occurs solely for the purpose
of fishing, hunting, trapping, or wildlife control or as an animal
husbandry or farming practice involving livestock.     

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2001.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

C.S.H.B. 653 modifies the original by specifying that a person commits an
offense of animal cruelty if the person intentionally or knowingly, rather
than with criminal negligence, tortures or overworks an animal or kills,
injures, or administers poison to certain animals belonging to another
without legal authority or the owner's effective consent.  The substitute
does not increase the punishment of an offense committed with criminal
negligence, but does provide that such an offense is a state jail felony if
the person has previously been convicted one time, rather than two times.
The substitute also provides that an offense committed intentionally or
knowingly is a state jail felony, except that such an offense is a felony
of the third degree if the person has previously been convicted two times
of animal cruelty.  The substitute provides an exception to the application
of these provisions if the conduct is generally accepted and otherwise
lawful and occurs  for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife
control or as an animal husbandry or farming practice involving livestock.