2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB654
HB654, the Asp-Morgan Act, lets a court defer certain deer-hunting charges without first finding the defendant guilty, then dismiss them after hunter education and compliance with the law.
Official caption: Relating to the dismissal of a criminal charge related to the illegal hunting of certain deer; authorizing fees.
Official report lists House author(s): Leo Wilson. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB654, the Asp-Morgan Act, lets a court defer certain deer-hunting charges without first finding the defendant guilty, then dismiss them after hunter education and compliance with the law.
- To qualify, the hunter must report the offense to a game warden before leaving the location, then be charged; not retain the carcass or dispose of it as the department prescribes; have no prior conviction for a covered offense or prior dismissal under this provision; plead guilty or no contest in open court; and request a hunter education course.
- The court must dismiss the deferred charge when it receives satisfactory evidence that the hunter completed the course before the last day of the deferral and committed no violation of the Parks and Wildlife Code or commission rules during that period.
- The court may add an administrative reimbursement fee of up to $10 and a separate $10 course-provider reimbursement fee, on top of otherwise applicable costs and fees.
What does it do?
HB654, the Asp-Morgan Act, lets a court defer certain deer-hunting charges without first finding the defendant guilty, then dismiss them after hunter education and compliance with the law. It applies only to specified mule-deer or white-tailed-deer antler-spread violations where the difference from the required measurement is one inch or less. It does not legalize that take or excuse every hunting violation. Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025, and applies only to offenses committed on or after that date. If any element occurred earlier, the former law applies. Final law; history.
To qualify, the hunter must report the offense to a game warden before leaving the location, then be charged; not retain the carcass or dispose of it as the department prescribes; have no prior conviction for a covered offense or prior dismissal under this provision; plead guilty or no contest in open court; and request a hunter education course. Even then, granting a deferral is the court’s choice. The deferral cannot exceed 180 days.
The court must dismiss the deferred charge when it receives satisfactory evidence that the hunter completed the course before the last day of the deferral and committed no violation of the Parks and Wildlife Code or commission rules during that period. If those conditions are not met, the court must adjudicate guilt and impose the offense’s penalty. A dismissed charge cannot count as a conviction for legal disqualifications or be used to deny, suspend or revoke an otherwise qualified person’s professional or occupational license. The act does not promise automatic erasure of every record.
The court may add an administrative reimbursement fee of up to $10 and a separate $10 course-provider reimbursement fee, on top of otherwise applicable costs and fees. Those reimbursement fees are not refundable even if the course is not completed, but may not be required of an indigent defendant whose proceedings are deferred. Cases may be transferred to another consenting court with jurisdiction.
What changed along the way?
The original bill was broader. The House substitute added the act’s name and narrowed eligibility to a measurement difference of one inch or less, required reporting to a game warden before leaving, added the carcass condition, and barred a second dismissal under the provision. Those changes survived in the engrossed, Senate committee and enrolled texts. The amendment index lists no floor amendments; the substantive changes came through the committee substitute. Introduced text; House substitute; amendment index.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Eligible hunters who promptly report a narrow measurement violation may avoid a conviction after completing the court-approved process. They still face a plea, course obligations, possible costs and the risk of conviction if they fail the conditions. Courts, game wardens and course providers must administer the process. The law does not quantify how many hunters will qualify or any conservation effect.
The Legislative Budget Board anticipated no significant state or local fiscal impact and assumed costs could be absorbed within existing resources. That is not a promise that an individual case is free of costs. Engrossed fiscal note, May 22, 2025.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.