Sec. 7.24. DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OR OTHER BUSINESS ENTITY. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity under Section 7.22(a)(1) or (a)(2) that the high managerial agent having supervisory responsibility over the subject matter of the offense employed due diligence to prevent its commission.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 112 (S.B. 1258), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2019.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1988–2015 · leading case:
Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999).
Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 7.24 (Vernon 1994). [1] Flores v.”
Alford v. State, 806 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991).
“See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 8.02 , 8.06, 9.22, 9.”
Williams v. State, 911 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996).
“05 (Vernon 1994)). As appellant did not bear the burden of proof on the issue of self-defense, we decline to engage in a factual review of the evidence presented.”
Vaughan & Sons, Inc. v. State, 750 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “It is an affirmative defense under Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 7.24 (Vernon Supp.1988) that “the high managerial agent having supervisory responsibility over the subject matter of the offense employed due diligence to prevent its commission.”
Howard Thomas Douglas v. State, No. 03-13-00092-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2015).
“ref’d) (concluding that appellant did not overcome presumption that his counsel’s failure to seek severance was sound trial strategy because record was silent as to trial counsel’s reasons for that decision); see also Tex. Penal Code § 7.24 cmt. 15 (West 1974) (noting that due…”
Douglas, Howard Thomas, No. PD-1542-15 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2015).
“ref’d) (concluding that appellant did not overcome presumption that his counsel’s failure to seek severance was sound trial strategy because record was silent as to trial counsel’s reasons for that decision); see also Tex. Penal Code § 7.24 cmt. 15 (West 1974) (noting that due…”
Howard Thomas Douglas v. State, No. 03-14-00605-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 29, 2015).
“refd) (concluding that appellant did not overcome presumption that his counsel's failure to seek severance was sound trial strategy because record was silent as to trial counsel's reasons for that decision); see also Tex. Penal Code§ 7.24 cmt. 15 (West 1974) (noting that due…”
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.