According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1152 could increase demands on both state and local correctional systems. Specifically, the bill may lead to more individuals being sentenced to prison or placed under community supervision, such as probation or parole, thereby placing additional strain on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and local probation departments.

However, the fiscal impact cannot be definitively quantified due to a lack of available data on how many individuals might be prosecuted under the newly created offense. The offense is narrowly tailored to apply to repeated drug crimes within a 12-month period, but the frequency and prosecutorial uptake of this new charge remain uncertain. As such, it is not currently possible to estimate the cost of incarceration, court processing, or supervision that might arise from its enactment.

For local governments, similar unknowns apply. Counties may incur increased costs if more defendants are detained pretrial or sentenced to county jail time before transfer to state custody. The note acknowledges that local correctional resources could face added pressure, though again, the magnitude of the impact remains undetermined due to the speculative nature of enforcement outcomes.

In conclusion, while the bill could create meaningful fiscal pressure on Texas's criminal justice infrastructure, particularly in communities already managing high drug-related caseloads, the exact budgetary effect cannot be measured without further data or implementation history.

SB 1152 presents a well-intentioned effort to strengthen Texas’s ability to prosecute repeat drug offenders by creating a new third-degree felony offense for the “continuous manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance.” The bill is designed to address a gap in current law that allows individuals who repeatedly engage in small-scale drug trafficking to face only low-level charges unless they’ve already been convicted multiple times. By allowing prosecutors to combine repeated offenses over a 12-month period into one felony charge, the bill aims to streamline prosecution and increase accountability for chronic offenders.

However, the bill also raises notable concerns related to due process and constitutional protections. Specifically, it permits a conviction without requiring the jury to unanimously agree on which specific acts occurred, when they happened, or where—only that two or more such acts happened within the defined period. This deviates from standard protections found in Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees the right to know and confront the charges one is accused of. Without clear safeguards ensuring that convictions are based on well-defined and provable actions, the bill risks enabling convictions on vague or generalized allegations, which could undermine individual liberty and due process.

Additionally, while the fiscal impact of the bill is currently indeterminate, the Legislative Budget Board warns that it could increase the burden on both state and local correctional systems due to longer sentences and expanded prosecution. This potential expansion of the criminal justice system’s scope also conflicts with principles of limited government and taxpayer accountability.

In light of these considerations, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1152 unless amended to require traditional jury unanimity on at least two specific criminal acts, and consider adjustments to ensure that the charge is reserved for more serious or repeat offenders. These changes would help preserve constitutional protections while still achieving the bill’s goal of targeting persistent drug-related crime.

• Individual Liberty: The most concerning impact of the bill lies here. The bill allows a person to be convicted of a third-degree felony based on a pattern of conduct, even if the jury does not unanimously agree on the specific acts, dates, or locations of the offenses. This departs from traditional due process standards and the right to a fair trial under Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Without requiring unanimity on the details of the alleged criminal behavior, the bill lowers the threshold for conviction, increasing the risk of unjust outcomes and diminishing protections against wrongful prosecution.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the idea that individuals should be held accountable for repeated illegal conduct, particularly when it comes to drug trafficking and manufacturing. By creating a legal mechanism that targets patterns of criminal behavior rather than isolated incidents, the bill encourages the justice system to treat chronic offenders more seriously. This supports the principle that actions have consequences, especially when those actions repeatedly harm communities.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly regulate or burden lawful businesses. However, the broader context of drug enforcement can have unintended spillover effects in communities where economic opportunity is limited, and small-scale drug activity may be symptomatic of deeper structural issues. That said, the bill neither facilitates nor restricts legitimate market activity, making its impact on free enterprise essentially neutral.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill doesn’t address asset seizure or property rights directly, it may be enforced in tandem with civil asset forfeiture laws, especially in drug cases. There is a risk, if not carefully monitored, that increased drug convictions under this new offense could lead to expanded property seizures. However, because the bill does not create new seizure authorities or affect property laws directly, the current impact is indirect and neutral.
• Limited Government: By expanding the state’s prosecutorial authority and creating a broad new offense without requiring detailed jury findings, the bill increases the power of the state at the expense of procedural protections. It invites the potential for overcharging and burdens the judicial system with broader discretion. Without amendments to restore traditional unanimity standards and constrain prosecutorial reach, this bill represents a concerning expansion of government authority over individuals, particularly in the criminal justice context.

• HB 5467 (Same As)