HBA-MM C.S.H.B. 2190 76(R)BILL ANALYSIS Office of House Bill AnalysisC.S.H.B. 2190 By: Hinojosa Criminal Jurisprudence 4/13/1999 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In today's market place where commissioned agents and buyers representatives are frequently used to inspect, select, order and take delivery of products, it is not uncommon for a product to be delivered to the purchaser before actual receipt of the payment. Currently, a presumption of intent to steal is created when a defendant passes a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, simultaneously obtains the property, and at that time the defendant does not have sufficient funds for payment in full in the bank. However, the courts have interpreted the penal code to require that the check to be given before the exchange of property or services. Cortez v. State, 582 S.W. 2d 119, (Tx.Crim.App. 1979). The recipient of the dishonored check must prove intent to defraud without the benefit of the presumption in those cases where the check is issued after the delivery of goods or services. C.S.H.B. 2190 allows the issuance of a check or similar sight order with insufficient funds to be used as prima facie evidence of theft in the case when the check or similar sight order is issued within seven days after obtaining the property, rather than only when the instrument and property are simultaneously exchanged. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 31.06 (a), Penal Code, to allow the issuance of a check or similar sight order with insufficient funds to be used as prima facie evidence of theft in the case when the check or similar sight order is issued not later than seven days after obtaining the property, rather than only when the instrument and property are simultaneously exchanged. SECTION 2. Effective date: September 1, 1999. Makes application of this Act prospective. SECTION 3. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE C.S.H.B. 2190 modifies the original in SECTION 1 by amending Section 31.06(a), Penal Code, rather than adding Subsection (g). The substitute allows the issuance of a check or similar sight order with insufficient funds to be used as prima facie evidence of theft in the case when the check or similar sight order is issued not later than seven days after obtaining the property, rather than only when the instrument and property are simultaneously exchanged. The original bill created a similar presumption against a person who obtains property by promising the delivery of a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, if the person fails to deliver the check or order within seven days of obtaining the property. The substitute modifies the original by moving the effective date from SECTION 3 of the original to SECTION 2 of the substitute. SECTION 4 (Emergency clause) of the original is redesignated as SECTION 3 of the substitute.