BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 593|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 593
Author: Ma (D)
Amended: 5/21/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 6/12/12
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-20, 1/30/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Domestic violence: battering: recall and
resentencing
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill expands the provisions allowing a
habeas corpus petition in cases where intimate partner
battering was not introduced into evidence to include cases
where the evidence was not competent or substantial and
where such evidence may have changed the sentence not just
the conviction.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that in a criminal
action expert testimony is admissible by either the
prosecution or defense regarding intimate partner battering
and its effects, including the nature and effect of
physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the beliefs,
perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic violence,
CONTINUED
AB 593
Page
2
except when offered against a defendant to prove the
occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis
of a criminal charge. (Evidence Code Section 1107)
Existing law provides that every person unlawfully
imprisoned or restrained of his or her liberty, under any
pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to
inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint.
(Penal Code (PEN) Section 1473(a))
Existing law states that a writ of habeas corpus may be
prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:
1. False evidence that is substantially material or
probative on the issue of guilt, or punishment was
introduced against a person at any hearing or trial
relating to his incarceration;
2. False physical evidence believed by a person to be
factual, material or probative on the issue of guilt,
which was known by the person at the time of entering a
plea of guilty and which was a material factor directly
related to the plea of guilty by the person; and
3. Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have
known of the false nature of the evidence is immaterial
to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus. (PEN
Section 1473(b))
Existing law states that nothing in this section shall be
construed as limiting the grounds for which a writ of
habeas corpus may be prosecuted or as precluding the use of
any other remedies. (PEN Section 1473(d))
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings in
considering a prisoner's suitability for parole, to
consider any evidence that, at the time of the commission
of the crime, the prisoner had experienced intimate partner
battering and was convicted of the offense prior to this
defense being recognized. (PEN Section 4801(b))
Existing law provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be
brought on the basis that evidence relating to intimate
partner battering and its effects, as defined, was not
AB 593
Page
3
received into evidence at the trial relating to the
prisoner's incarceration for a murder conviction, and was
of such substance that had it been received into evidence
there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine
confidence in the judgment of conviction, that the result
of the proceedings would have been different. (PEN Section
1473.5(a))
This bill provides instead that a writ of habeas corpus may
be prosecuted on the basis that competent and substantial
expert testimony relating to inmate partner battering and
its effects was not 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.
Existing law provides that a writ of habeas corpus based on
the fact that evidence of partner battering was not
received into evidence at trial is limited to violent
felonies committed before August 29, 1996, that resulted in
judgments of conviction as to which expert testimony
admissible pursuant to Evidence Code Section 1107 may be
probative on the issue of culpability. (PEN Section 1473.5
9b))
This bill also applies if the evidence if the evidence
admissible under Evidence Code 1107 would impact the
sentence.
This bill provides that 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.
This bill provides that 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 present to the
trier of fact, and had that evidence been presented, there
AB 593
Page
4
is a reasonable probability that the result of the
proceedings would have been different.
Existing law provides that the section authorizing a writ
of habeas corpus based on intimate partner battering and
its effects shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2020. (PEN Section 1473.5(e))
This bill removes that sunset provision.
Background
Habeas corpus, also known as "the Great Writ," is a process
guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions to
obtain prompt judicial relief from illegal restraint. The
functions of the writ is set forth in Penal Code Section
1473(a): "Every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained
of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may
prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the
cause of such imprisonment or restraint." SB 799
(Karnette), Chapter 858, Statutes of 2001, specifically
permitted habeas corpus petitions for battered persons
convicted of killing their abusers. SB 799 created a new
habeas corpus remedy under Penal Code Section 1473.5 for a
narrow class of prisoners on the basis that they did not
have Battered Women's Syndrome (BWS) testimony presented at
trial.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/13/12)
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Communities United Institute
California Habeas Project
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center for Domestic Peace
City of Palm Desert
Correctional Counseling for Change/Yorke Consulting
AB 593
Page
5
Global Center for Women & Justice at Vanguard University
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Peace over Violence
Prototypes
Rainbow Services, Ltd.
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/13/12)
California District Attorneys Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
In 1991, the Legislature enacted AB 785, which amends
Evidence Code Section 1107 to allow expert testimony on
Intimate Partner Battering and its Effects (IPB) to be
introduced as evidence in cases where battered women are
charged with crimes related to their experiences of being
abused. IPB testimony was intended to educate juries
about domestic violence and help them understand the
effects of the abuse on the defendant at the time of the
crime.
In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 799 and SB 1385 in
2005, which allows incarcerated victims of domestic
violence who were convicted of crimes related to their
experiences of being abused are able to submit a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus challenging their original
convictions. Such petitioners can seek a new trial, a
reduced sentence, or another equitable remedy if expert
testimony on intimate partner battering and its effects
was not received into evidence during their original
trial proceedings, and it is reasonable to believe that
the outcome of the trial would have been different with
such expert testimony. Since expert testimony on IPB was
a new type of evidence, some of the expert's testimony
was limited in ways that prejudiced the battered woman on
trial.
While SB 799 was intended to provide relief for all
domestic violence victims who lacked expert testimony
during their original trial proceedings, some battered
women have been denied access to this relief because they
did not have substantial and competent expert testimony
during their original trials, even though this testimony
AB 593
Page
6
was deficient by today's standards.
Additionally, due to the amount of time needed to
investigate these 20+ year old cases, only 16 women have
successfully petitioned for a writ and been released.
According to the Habeas Project, which helps find legal
representation for women that qualify under Penal Code
1473.5, there are 19 women still waiting for attorneys;
some of whom have been waiting for over 5 years. By the
time legal representation is found, investigations are
conducted and habeas petitions are prepared, the current
sunset clause in P.C. 1473.5 may preclude these women
from seeking relief.
AB 593 captures the original intent of SB 799 and
rectifies the problem with current law by allowing
victims of domestic violence whose expert testimony was
incompetent and unsubstantial during their trial court
proceedings to file for a writ of habeas corpus.
AB 593 also gives victims more time to receive legal
representation by deleting the sunset date currently in
the statute.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District
Attorneys Association states:
This bill would expand and make permanent an existing
provision of law that allows a person convicted of a
violent felony to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus on
the basis that expert testimony relating to intimate
partner battering (IPB) and its effects was not rece4ived
in evidence at the trial court proceedings.
This law was created to fill a gap for defendants who
were victims of IPB before the court recognized IPB as an
admissible form of expert opinion. It is premature to
say that those potential defendants who would have the
ability to assert such a claim will not have had the
opportunity to do so by 2020, when the statute is
currently set to expire. Additionally, removing the
current sunset date will likely eliminate any impetus for
those attorneys who would provide legal assistance to
these inmates because there would be no time limit on
AB 593
Page
7
such a claim.
AB 593 also expands the scope of the existing law.
Today, in inmate must show that the relevant evidence was
not introduced during the trial court proceedings. Under
this bill, for example, a defendant who had introduced
IPB evidence at sentencing, but not at trial, could now
go back and seek a writ. Additionally, despite the
definitions in the bill, it is unclear what the terms of
"competent" and "substantial" mean in the context of this
writ. This bill asks courts to second-guess decisions
regarding the admissibility of specific evidence that may
have been made decades ago.
This introduction of evidence regarding IPB can, in some
cases, establish valid forms of mitigation for criminal
conduct. However, this bill does not further that
purpose. Rather, it appears to be an effort to interfere
with valid convictions by raising tenuous claims of IPB.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-20, 1/30/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon,
Halderman, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Pan, Perea, Portantino,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Conway, Cook, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove,
Harkey, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cedillo, Gorell, Hagman, Lara, V. Manuel
Pérez
RJG:m 6/13/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
AB 593
Page
8