Texas House Bill HB 4184

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/10/25

Caption

Relating to the role of a jury in a criminal case.

Summary

HB 4184 would expand and clarify the role of a criminal jury in Texas. The bill amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to state that a juror may not be removed or disqualified simply because the juror is willing to exercise the jury’s power under Article 36.13. It also rewrites Article 36.13 to more explicitly recognize that, while juries generally receive the law from the court, they may choose not to apply a law to a defendant if they conclude the law is unjust or unjustly applied, and instead return a not-guilty verdict or a verdict on a lesser included offense. The bill further gives a defendant the right to tell the jury about this power and to argue to the jury according to conscience, and it bars the court or the state from interfering with that right. It also requires courts to allow evidence and testimony relevant to the jury’s exercise of this power, including arguments about the law’s merit, intent, constitutionality, applicability, the defendant’s motives or moral perspective, the degree of guilt or harm caused, and possible punishment. The state is allowed to rebut that evidence with similar evidence. The changes would apply only to juries empaneled on or after September 1, 2025.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would alter Texas criminal procedure by expressly protecting jury nullification-related conduct and limiting the ability of prosecutors or courts to exclude jurors based on their willingness to consider that power. It would amend Articles 35.16 and 36.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, affecting jury selection, trial presentation, and the scope of evidence a defendant may introduce in criminal cases. The practical effect would be to broaden a defendant’s ability to argue lawfulness, fairness, and conscience to the jury, while also giving the state a corresponding right to rebut.

Sentiment

The available record shows the bill was referred to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and there were no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be framed as a jury-rights expansion and a protection for juror independence, which would likely appeal to supporters of criminal justice reform and robust jury discretion. At the same time, the proposal is likely to draw concern from prosecutors and others who favor limiting jury instructions and preserving uniform application of criminal law.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s explicit recognition of a jury’s ability to decline to apply a law it views as unjust or unjustly applied, which is closely associated with jury nullification. Supporters would likely view this as a safeguard for conscience, fairness, and defendant rights, while opponents would likely argue it undermines the rule of law, creates inconsistency in verdicts, and invites juries to disregard statutes and judicial instructions. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s prohibition on disqualifying jurors for expressing willingness to exercise that power, which could be seen as protecting impartiality by some and as allowing bias against enforcement of the law by others.