According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1019 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The changes introduced—primarily the expansion of admissible hearsay evidence in juvenile proceedings for specific offenses—are procedural and do not necessitate new programs, infrastructure, or staffing.

It is anticipated that any administrative or procedural costs incurred by the courts, law enforcement, or other relevant state agencies can be absorbed within existing budgets and resources. Additionally, the bill is not expected to significantly affect state correctional populations or the demand for correctional resources, given that it modifies evidentiary standards rather than criminal penalties or sentencing structures.

At the local level, the bill also poses no significant fiscal impact. Local jurisdictions are not expected to require additional resources to implement or comply with the provisions of SB 1019, making the bill cost-neutral for both state and local governments.

SB 1019 addresses an undeniably serious and sensitive issue: protecting vulnerable victims—children and individuals with disabilities—from retraumatization during legal proceedings. The bill seeks to expand the admissibility of hearsay statements in juvenile adjudications, allowing outcry testimony for victims up to 18 years old and for disabled individuals, and aligning juvenile evidentiary standards more closely with those used in criminal court.

However, despite the bill's commendable intent, it presents significant due process and constitutional concerns that cannot be overlooked.

The cornerstone of our legal system—especially in juvenile justice—is the right to confront one’s accuser. This is not a bureaucratic technicality; it’s a safeguard against wrongful adjudication and government overreach. Expanding the admissibility of hearsay evidence without simultaneously strengthening the legal standards for its reliability undermines this core liberty principle. The bill, as currently written, does not provide for judicial findings of necessity, reliability, or corroboration prior to admitting such hearsay. Without those guardrails, the risk of injustice grows.

This concern is amplified in the juvenile context, where proceedings can result in life-altering consequences, yet are often conducted with fewer procedural protections than adult trials. Lowering the evidentiary threshold in these cases risks eroding the fairness of the process under the guise of protection. That’s not a trade-off lawmakers should accept—especially when the same goals can be achieved with modest amendments.

Supporting vulnerable victims and upholding the constitutional rights of the accused are not mutually exclusive goals. They must be pursued in tandem. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1019 whilst considering specific amendments, listed below, signaling a commitment to both justice and liberty. It asks lawmakers to pause—not to reject the bill’s purpose—but to insist on specific amendments that ensure any hearsay evidence admitted is subject to judicial scrutiny for reliability and necessity. These amendments would bring balance, ensuring the system is fair, not just effective.

Recommended Amendments Might Include:

• A requirement that the court make a finding of reliability before admitting hearsay.
• A provision that hearsay is only admissible if the victim is unavailable to testify due to trauma or functional incapacity.
• A requirement for corroborating evidence when hearsay is introduced.

In sensitive cases like these, it is especially important that the integrity of the justice process be beyond reproach. Compassion without constitutional discipline risks creating new injustices. We can and should do better—by amending, not advancing, SB 1019 in its current form.