Committee hears support for HB 7236 to create affirmative defense for juveniles coerced by human trafficking

Advocates, service providers and some prosecutors told the Judiciary Committee March 24 that HB 7236 would give juvenile victims of human trafficking a narrow legal tool: an affirmative defense to some misdemeanor charges when the offense was committed as a direct result of victimization.

Erin Williamson, chief programs and strategy officer at Love146, an anti‑trafficking nonprofit, told committee members she supports the bill in its entirety and focused her remarks on section 16, which she said provides an affirmative defense for juveniles who commit certain misdemeanors under coercion of traffickers. “When they’re arrested for these things, sometimes it comes out that they’re victims of trafficking, but they really have no reason to compel them to disclose that victimization,” Williamson said. She said the defense helps ensure victims will disclose the coercion so prosecutors and defense counsel can factor that into case handling and sentencing.

Why proponents say the change is needed

Speakers described routine scenarios in which traffickers coerce juveniles to commit petty theft or other low‑level offenses to meet quotas. Jamie Manarakis, executive director of Partnership to End Human Trafficking, which provides housing and wraparound services to survivors, said many survivors enter the criminal justice system for offenses committed under coercion. Manarakis said the affirmative defense would help keep those juveniles out of long‑term juvenile court involvement that can increase the risk of future harm.

How the language was developed

Erin Williamson and others said the proposed language has been negotiated over several years with the Trafficking in Persons Council, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Williamson told the committee the provision is intentionally limited to juveniles and requires showing that the crime was committed as a direct result of trafficking victimization. She said the council considered whether to include adults or felonies but agreed on the narrower juvenile‑misdemeanor language to achieve consensus.

Committee questions and concerns

Representative Fischbach asked how the affirmative defense would operate in practice and whether it would bar convictions completely or simply be asserted at trial. Williamson said an affirmative defense is asserted at trial and “it also helps prosecutors in understanding how to work with individuals that come across them that are also victims of trafficking,” adding that some prosecutors already take victimization into account even without the defense but that the statutory tool would formalize that practice.

Representative Fischbach and others expressed concern that the current statutory text might be used too broadly for offenses that occur long after victimization — for example, Class A misdemeanors such as certain abuse or reckless endangerment charges. Williamson and other advocates said the language had been through multiple iterations with the defense bar and prosecutors and that proponents were open to precise drafting to make sure the causal link remained tight.

What witnesses recommended

Speakers urged the committee to preserve an affirmative defense for juveniles while ensuring the statute requires proof of a direct causal link between trafficking victimization and the offense. They also recommended continued engagement with prosecutors and defense counsel to refine language and scope.

Next steps

The committee heard testimony but did not vote on HB 7236 at the March 24 session. Advocates said the language now reflects years of negotiation through the Trafficking in Persons Council and recommended further drafting if the committee raises concerns about specific offenses or scope.