BILL NUMBER: AB 593	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  MAY 21, 2012
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JANUARY 5, 2012
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JANUARY 4, 2012
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MARCH 31, 2011

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Ma

                        FEBRUARY 16, 2011

   An act to amend Section 1473.5 of the Penal Code, relating to
domestic violence.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 593, as amended, Ma. Domestic violence: battering: recall and
resentencing.
   Existing law authorizes every person who is unlawfully imprisoned
or restrained of his or her liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas
corpus to inquire into the cause of that imprisonment or restraint.
   Existing law also provides, until January 1, 2020, that a writ of
habeas corpus may be prosecuted on the basis that expert testimony
relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was not
received in evidence at the trial court proceedings relating to a
prisoner's incarceration for the commission of a violent felony
committed prior to August 29, 1996, if there is a reasonable
probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of
conviction, that if the testimony had been admitted, the result of
the proceedings would have been different.
   This bill would make the provisions for a writ of habeas corpus
based on intimate partner battering operative indefinitely. The bill
would  also   instead  provide that a writ
of habeas corpus  based on intimate partner battering  may
also be prosecuted if  competent and substantial  expert
testimony relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was
 received into evidence but was limited at the trial court
proceedings relating to a prisoner's incarceration for the commission
of a violent felony committed prior to August 29, 1996, and
  not presented to the trier of fact at the trial court
proceedings, and is of such substance that, had it been presented,
 there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine
confidence in the judgment of conviction  , that if the
testimony had not been limited   or sentence  , the
result of the proceedings would have been different  , and that
the burden of proof in this regard is on the petitioner. The bill
would specify that if a petitioner presented to the trier of fact
expert testimony relating to intimate partner battering and its
effects that was not competent or substantial, having presented that
evidence would not be a bar to granting the petition  .
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 1473.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   1473.5.  (a) A writ of habeas corpus also may be prosecuted on the
basis that  competent and substantial  expert testimony
relating to intimate partner battering and its effects, within the
meaning of Section 1107 of the Evidence Code, was not 
received in evidence, or was received into evidence but was limited,
at the trial court proceedings relating to the prisoner's
incarceration, and is of such substance that, had it been received in
evidence or had it not been limited   presented to the
trier of fact at the trial court proceedings and is of such substance
that, had the competent and substantial expert testimony been
presented  , there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to
undermine confidence in the judgment of conviction  or sentence
 , that the result of the proceedings would have been different.
Sections 1260 to 1262, inclusive, apply to the prosecution of a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to this section. As used in this section,
"trial court proceedings" means those court proceedings that occur
from the time the accusatory pleading is filed until and including
judgment and sentence.
   (b) This section is limited to violent felonies as specified in
subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 that were committed before August
29, 1996, and that resulted in judgments of conviction  or
sentence  after a plea or trial as to which expert testimony
admissible pursuant to Section 1107 of the Evidence Code may be
probative on the issue of culpability. 
   (c) A showing that expert testimony relating to intimate partner
battering and its effects was presented to the trier of fact is not a
bar to granting a petition under this section if that expert
testimony was not competent or substantial. The burden of proof is on
the petitioner to establish a sufficient showing that competent and
substantial expert testimony, of a nature which would be competent
using prevailing understanding of intimate partner battering and its
effects, was not presented to the trier of fact, and had that
evidence been presented, there is a reasonable probability that the
result of the proceedings would have been different.  
   (c) 
    (d)  If a petitioner for habeas corpus under this
section has previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it
is grounds for denial of the new petition if a court determined on
the merits in the prior petition that the omission of expert
testimony relating to battered women's syndrome or intimate partner
battering and its effects at trial was not prejudicial and did not
entitle the petitioner to the writ of habeas corpus. 
   (d) 
    (e)  For purposes of this section, the changes that
become effective on January 1, 2005, are not intended to expand the
uses or applicability of expert testimony on battering and its
effects that were in effect immediately prior to that date in
criminal cases.