Texas House Bill HB 252

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/19/25

Caption

Relating to an affirmative defense to prosecution for certain victims of trafficking of persons or compelling prostitution.

Summary

HB 252 creates a new affirmative defense to criminal prosecution for a person who was a victim of trafficking of persons or compelling prostitution and who committed the charged conduct as a direct result of force, fraud, or coercion. The defense applies only when the person would not have engaged in the conduct but for that coercion, when a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have been compelled to act, and when the person was not merely given an opportunity to commit the offense. The bill also allows relevant evidence of victim status to be introduced to support the defense. The bill further clarifies that a defendant does not have to prove the trafficker or coercer was charged with or convicted of trafficking or compelling prostitution. It excludes certain serious offenses listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure from the defense, except in limited party-liability situations. The change applies only to offenses committed on or after the bill’s effective date, which is 91 days after the legislative session ends.

Impact

HB 252 would amend the Texas Penal Code by adding Section 8.09 to Chapter 8, establishing a specific affirmative defense for trafficking and compelled-prostitution victims in criminal cases. It would affect prosecutions involving offenses committed under duress tied to human trafficking or coercive prostitution, while preserving prosecution for excluded serious offenses and limiting retroactive application. The bill primarily affects defendants who can show they were coerced into the conduct, as well as prosecutors and courts evaluating evidence of victimization and coercion.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-protection and criminal-justice reform bill rather than a controversial policy change. Its purpose suggests support for recognizing the coercive circumstances faced by trafficking survivors and reducing criminal liability for conduct compelled by abuse. No formal opposition or recorded vote history is available in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate, but the filing indicates a targeted, sympathetic approach to trafficking victims.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the scope and proof requirements of the affirmative defense. The bill limits relief to cases where force, fraud, or coercion directly caused the conduct and where a reasonable person would have been compelled, which may raise disputes over how narrowly courts should interpret those standards. Another possible issue is the exclusion of certain serious offenses listed in Article 42A.054(a), which means some defendants who were trafficked or coerced would still not qualify for the defense. The bill also removes the need to prove the trafficker was charged or convicted, which may be viewed as helpful to victims but could concern prosecutors worried about evidentiary reliability.