PENAL CODE

CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF


	§ 2.01.  PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  All persons 
are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an 
offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or 
indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to 
no inference of guilt at his trial.

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


	§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.


	§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.


	§ 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.

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


	§ 2.05.  PRESUMPTION.  When this code or another penal 
law establishes a presumption with respect to any fact, it has the 
following consequences:
		(1)  if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that 
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the 
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is 
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding 
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact;  and
		(2)  if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted 
to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the 
presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as 
follows:
			(A)  that the facts giving rise to the presumption 
must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
			(B)  that if such facts are proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense 
sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find;
			(C)  that even though the jury may find the 
existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged;  and
			(D)  if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the 
existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the 
presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption 
for any purpose.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 912, ch. 342, § 2, eff. Sept. 
1, 1975;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.