Sec. 15.04. RENUNCIATION DEFENSE. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 15.01 that under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal objective the actor avoided commission of the offense attempted by abandoning his criminal conduct or, if abandonment was insufficient to avoid commission of the offense, by taking further affirmative action that prevented the commission.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 15.02 or 15.03 that under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal objective the actor countermanded his solicitation or withdrew from the conspiracy before commission of the object offense and took further affirmative action that prevented the commission of the object offense.
(c) Renunciation is not voluntary if it is motivated in whole or in part:
(1) by circumstances not present or apparent at the inception of the actor's course of conduct that increase the probability of detection or apprehension or that make more difficult the accomplishment of the objective; or
(2) by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until another time or to transfer the criminal act to another but similar objective or victim.
(d) Evidence that the defendant renounced his criminal objective by abandoning his criminal conduct, countermanding his solicitation, or withdrawing from the conspiracy before the criminal offense was committed and made substantial effort to prevent the commission of the object offense shall be admissible as mitigation at the hearing on punishment if he has been found guilty of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy; and in the event of a finding of renunciation under this subsection, the punishment shall be one grade lower than that provided for the offense committed.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case:
Brown v. State, 98 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
Brown v. State, 98 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “04(d) in accordance with the legislatively defined term "voluntary" in Texas Penal Code, Section 15.04, which contains the "general renunciation defense.”
Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 15.04(b) (Vernon 2003).”
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
“[19] The proposed *122 renunciation instruction, it is argued, was necessary after appellant called off his agreement with Gary Johnson, the undercover "hit man," because he was afraid his phone conversations were being recorded by jail personnel.”
Hall v. State, 160 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “[45] TEX. PEN. CODE § 15.04(d)(no explicit burden placed in the subsection but contained within section that describes successful renunciation as an "affirmative defense").”
Adedji Olalincoln Adekeye v. State, 437 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(a). Furthermore, abandonment must be voluntary, and the defense is not available if the abandonment is motivated in whole or in part “by circumstances not present or apparent at the inception of the actor’s course of conduct that increase the…”
Sanchez v. State, 23 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Texas Penal Code § 15.04(d) established an imperfect renunciation mitigating factor for inchoate offenses: Evidence that the defendant renounced his criminal objective by abandoning his criminal conduct, countermanding his solicitation, or withdrawing from the conspiracy before…”
McGann v. State, 30 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.04 (b) (Vernon 1994).”
Butcher, Charles E. Ii, 454 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
“Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.04 (a) (West 2013) (“It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 15.”
Patterson v. State, 121 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “04(d) in accordance with the legislatively-defined term “voluntary” in Texas Penal Code, Section 15.04, which contains the “general renunciation defense.”
Thompson v. State, 54 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. App. 2001).
“Appellant indirectly seems to make the argument that he is entitled to a renunciation defense under Texas Penal Code § 15.04(a). However, the renunciation defense requires an abandonment of the criminal conduct or further affirmative action that prevented the commission of the…”
Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See Texas Penal Code § 15.04(b). Moreover, the provision reducing the punishment for kidnapping if the victim is released in a "safe place" has been analyzed like a defense.”
Chennault v. State, 667 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Searcy and Patterson, Practice Commentary, TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.04 (Vernon 1974).”
— Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(a) — 5 cases
Adedji Olalincoln Adekeye v. State, 437 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. App. 2014).
“See Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(a). Furthermore, abandonment must be voluntary, and the defense is not available if the abandonment is motivated in whole or in part “by circumstances not present or apparent at the inception of the actor’s course of conduct that increase the…”
Thompson v. State, 54 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. App. 2001).
“Appellant indirectly seems to make the argument that he is entitled to a renunciation defense under Texas Penal Code § 15.04(a). However, the renunciation defense requires an abandonment of the criminal conduct or further affirmative action that prevented the commission of the…”
— Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(b) — 8 cases
Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App. 2006).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 15.04(b) (Vernon 2003).”
Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
“See Texas Penal Code § 15.04(b). Moreover, the provision reducing the punishment for kidnapping if the victim is released in a "safe place" has been analyzed like a defense.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(c) — 2 cases
— Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(c)(1) — 4 cases
Brown v. State, 98 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
“04(d) in accordance with the legislatively defined term "voluntary" in Texas Penal Code, Section 15.04, which contains the "general renunciation defense.”
Patterson v. State, 121 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. App. 2004).
“04(d) in accordance with the legislatively-defined term “voluntary” in Texas Penal Code, Section 15.04, which contains the “general renunciation defense.”
Chennault v. State, 667 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App. 1984).
“Searcy and Patterson, Practice Commentary, TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.04 (Vernon 1974).”
— Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(d) — 6 cases
Hall v. State, 160 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
“[45] TEX. PEN. CODE § 15.04(d)(no explicit burden placed in the subsection but contained within section that describes successful renunciation as an "affirmative defense").”
Sanchez v. State, 23 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
“Texas Penal Code § 15.04(d) established an imperfect renunciation mitigating factor for inchoate offenses: Evidence that the defendant renounced his criminal objective by abandoning his criminal conduct, countermanding his solicitation, or withdrawing from the conspiracy before…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.