TexasCHLforum.com

TVGuy wrote:I think TX DPS conveniently applied the law in one section to the other sections. I can't see how a court would interpret it that way.

I am not an expert, but I don't think the TX DPS has the power to create law.

ELB wrote:

PENAL CODE
TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF

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.

So tell me who decides the underlined parts, i.e. who decides whether evidence of VESP is submitted to a jury? I think you have to convince the judge first.

I would be happy to be wrong, but I don't think the legally has to prove anything other than the elements of the offense.

I note this post from Mr. Cotton:
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 41#p176583

The relevant law says:

SECTION 10. Section 46.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivision (18) to read as follows:
(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

So, in the highly unlikely event that I am in court facing a charge of violating 30.06, I would assert that I am, in fact, willing and able to provide services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations. A prosecutor could present evidence that I was not, in fact, willing and able to "provide services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations". Or I guess they could use an extremely convincing line of argument by saying "nah uh, no you're not!!!". In that case, I would point out that I have a Red Cross card, and a history of doing things like checking on my neighbors after the last hurricane that hit Houston back in 2008 (I believe), and various winter related power outages when I lived in the Northwest. During these times I have provided folks with food and water and let them stay in my home overnight when I had power and they did not. I have also provided folks with money for food and gas when I believed that they faced a personal emergency situation, and have stopped to helped others change a tire when they were in an emergency situation on the side of the road. Moreover, I can present witnesses who will testify to all of this, if necessary. I am not a legal expert, but I think I'll be OK. And worst case, I'll pay my $200.

Personally I believe that a mere sign should not carry any potential criminal penalties for anyone. But, if this new law has the side benefit of getting more folks to volunteer and to help others, that is not a bad thing, IMHO.