Sec. 25.04. ENTICING A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, he knowingly entices, persuades, or takes the child from the custody of the parent or guardian or person standing in the stead of the parent or guardian of such child.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, unless it is shown on the trial of the offense that the actor intended to commit a felony against the child, in which event an offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
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; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 685, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Colyandro (2007)
texcrimapp · cites it 2×
“[19] Other Penal Code provisions that refer to "a felony" as part of the definition of the crime include enticing a child (TEX. PENAL CODE § 25.04(b)); burglary of a motor vehicle (TEX.”
Oliva v. State (2018)
texcrimapp
“See Tex. Penal Code §§ 25.04(b), 25.07(g)(2), 28.”
Little v. State (2008)
texapp
“Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.04 (a) (Vernon 2003).”
Sanchez v. State (1986)
texapp · cites it 2×
“The motion to revoke probation alleged numerous violations of the conditions of probation, among them that appellant enticed a child younger than 18 years old from the custody of her parents, in violation of Tex.Pen.Code Ann. § 25.04 (1974). Appellant’s sole ground of error…”
Briggs v. State (1991)
texapp
“Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 25.04(a) (Vernon 1989).”
Winthrop v. State (1987)
texapp
“04 establishes the misdemeanor offense *547 of enticing a child, defines the offense as knowingly enticing, persuading, or taking a child younger than 18 years old from the custody of the parent or guardian or person standing in the stead of the parent or guardian, and requires…”
Hawkins v. State (1995)
texapp
“He then asserts that, [had he taken R_ away from Hutchins without becoming managing conservator], he could have faced charges for “enticing a child,” TexPenal Code Ann. § 25.04 (Vernon 1994), or for kidnapping.”
In Re HRM (2006)
tex · cites it 2×
“" TEX. PEN. CODE § 25.04(a). [2] Orders terminating the parent-child relationship are final orders appealable under section 109.”
In the Interest of H.R.M. (2006)
tex · cites it 2×
“” Tex Pen. Code § 25.04(a). . Orders terminating the parent-child relationship are final orders appealable under section 109.”
Nicholas Wayne Doss v. the State of Texas (2021)
texapp · cites it 4×
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.04(a). Moreover, as further discussed in our discussion of appellant’s third issue, the evidence did not support a finding that appellant made a “mere offer of an activity” to A.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 25.04(a) — 4 cases
In the Interest of H.R.M. (2006)
tex
“” Tex Pen. Code § 25.04(a). . Orders terminating the parent-child relationship are final orders appealable under section 109.”
Briggs v. State (1991)
texapp
“Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 25.04(a) (Vernon 1989).”
In Re HRM (2006)
tex
“" TEX. PEN. CODE § 25.04(a). [2] Orders terminating the parent-child relationship are final orders appealable under section 109.”
Nicholas Wayne Doss v. the State of Texas (2021)
texapp
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.04(a). Moreover, as further discussed in our discussion of appellant’s third issue, the evidence did not support a finding that appellant made a “mere offer of an activity” to A.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 25.04(b) — 7 cases
State v. Colyandro (2007)
texcrimapp
“[19] Other Penal Code provisions that refer to "a felony" as part of the definition of the crime include enticing a child (TEX. PENAL CODE § 25.04(b)); burglary of a motor vehicle (TEX.”
Oliva v. State (2018)
texcrimapp
“See Tex. Penal Code §§ 25.04(b), 25.07(g)(2), 28.”
In the Interest of H.R.M. (2006)
tex
“” Tex Pen. Code § 25.04(a). . Orders terminating the parent-child relationship are final orders appealable under section 109.”
In Re HRM (2006)
tex
“" TEX. PEN. CODE § 25.04(a). [2] Orders terminating the parent-child relationship are final orders appealable under section 109.”
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.