Texas Codes

Tex. Penal Code § 2.05 (2026)

Presumption

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), 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.

(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a presumption in favor of the defendant 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, that:

(A) the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist;

(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;

(C) even though the jury may find that the presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and

(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.

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

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 288 (H.B. 823), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Penal Code § 2.05. For example, the Penal Code states that a person who purchases or receives a used or secondhand motor vehicle is presumed to know on receipt that the vehicle has been previously stolen, if certain basic facts are established regarding his conduct…”
Braughton, Christopher Ernest, 569 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Penal Code § 2.05 (2004) (describing the effect of a presumption with respect to an "element of the offense.”
Hollander, Joe Shawn, 414 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(1). 6. Tex. Penal Code § 2.”
Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “03(c)(3)); the presumption that a person intends to avoid payment for services if he absconds without paying for services in circumstances in which payment is ordinarily made immediately upon rendering the service (Tex.”
Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “105(a) ("When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury appropriately[.”
Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(2)(A). This means that if the State disproves any one of the three required actions — one, two, or three — then the presumption will not apply.”
Villarreal, Rene Daniel, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). “(citing Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(1); Morales v. State, 357 S.”
Rene Daniel Villarreal v. State, 393 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 2.05 (b)(1) (West 2011).”
Rudd v. State, 921 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “TexPenal Code Ann. § 2.05 (Vernon 1994). 3 No objection was made to this omission at trial.”
Alexis Elaina Walker v. State, 557 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App. 2018). “” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 2.05(b)(1) (West 2011); Morales v.”
Webber v. State, 29 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “To transform mandatory presumptions into permissive presumptions and thereby pass constitutional muster, the legislature enacted Texas Penal Code section 2.05. See id. Consequently, when a trial court gives a section 22.”
Morales, Jose Manuel, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(1). We need not address the standard of review required for submission of a defense presumption.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(1) — 1 case
United States v. White, 258 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2001).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(2) — 4 cases
Bryant v. State, 135 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. App. 2004).
Webber v. State, 29 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. App. 2000). “To transform mandatory presumptions into permissive presumptions and thereby pass constitutional muster, the legislature enacted Texas Penal Code section 2.05. See id. Consequently, when a trial court gives a section 22.”
Schenck v. State, 652 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. App. 1983).
Louis Dwayne Felkins v. State (Tex. App. 2019).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(2)(A) — 2 cases
Regalado v. State, 872 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. App. 1994).
Wolff v. State, 661 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. App. 1983).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(2)(B) — 1 case
Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. App. 1988).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a) — 5 cases
Ferguson v. State, 335 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App. 2011).
Joe Shawn Hollander v. State of Texas, 406 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App. 2012).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(1) — 2 cases
Hollander, Joe Shawn, 414 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(1). 6. Tex. Penal Code § 2.”
Rodney Joe Garrett v. State (Tex. App. 2015).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(2) — 15 cases
Hollander, Joe Shawn, 414 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(1). 6. Tex. Penal Code § 2.”
Tottenham v. State, 285 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. App. 2009).
Scott v. State, 253 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App. 2008).
Nunez v. State, 215 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. 2007).
Ramirez-Memije v. State, 444 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(2)(A) — 3 cases
Naranjo v. State, 217 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. App. 2006).
Gary Griffin v. State (Tex. App. 2015).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases
Murphy v. State, 229 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App. 2007).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(2)(D) — 2 cases
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b) — 9 cases
Braughton, Christopher Ernest, 569 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “See Tex. Penal Code § 2.05 (2004) (describing the effect of a presumption with respect to an "element of the offense.”
Hollander, Joe Shawn, 414 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(a)(1). 6. Tex. Penal Code § 2.”
Brian Darnell Johnson v. State (Tex. App. 2015).
Magan Marie Kryzak v. State (Tex. App. 2019).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(1) — 14 cases
Villarreal, Rene Daniel, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). “(citing Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(1); Morales v. State, 357 S.”
Alexis Elaina Walker v. State, 557 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App. 2018). “” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 2.05(b)(1) (West 2011); Morales v.”
Morales, Jose Manuel, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(1). We need not address the standard of review required for submission of a defense presumption.”
Zachary Daniel Gage v. State (Tex. App. 2016).
Zafar Ali Raza v. State (Tex. App. 2018).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(2) — 4 cases
Karra Trichele Allen v. State (Tex. App. 2016).
Brian Darnell Johnson v. State (Tex. App. 2015).
Magan Marie Kryzak v. State (Tex. App. 2019).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases
Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). “Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(2)(A). This means that if the State disproves any one of the three required actions — one, two, or three — then the presumption will not apply.”
Tonia Elizabeth Ross v. State (Tex. App. 2019).
— Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(d) — 1 case
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.