As is developed in CPJC 71.17 in this
chapter, two statutory subsections provide for a punishment issue
focusing on a defendant’s claim that he withdrew “from the combination.” Tex. Penal Code §§ 71.02(d), 71.05(c).
This, unlike the affirmative defense to guilt, does not require
prevention of the covered offense. On the other hand, it seems limited
to situations in which the proof of guilt included proof the defendant
joined “the combination.” As discussed in CPJC 71.4, this is
never actually required.
If the provisions are construed as focusing on withdrawal from
the conspiracy, the punishment issue is obviously limited
to those cases in which the state has proven guilt by showing the
defendant conspired to commit the covered offense.
Comment
As is developed in CPJC 71.17 in this chapter, two statutory subsections provide for a punishment issue focusing on a defendant’s claim that he withdrew “from the combination.” Tex. Penal Code §§ 71.02(d), 71.05(c). This, unlike the affirmative defense to guilt, does not require prevention of the covered offense. On the other hand, it seems limited to situations in which the proof of guilt included proof the defendant joined “the combination.” As discussed in CPJC 71.4, this is never actually required.
If the provisions are construed as focusing on withdrawal from the conspiracy, the punishment issue is obviously limited to those cases in which the state has proven guilt by showing the defendant conspired to commit the covered offense.