BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1593
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 25, 2012

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                     AB 1593 (Ma) - As Amended:  March 29, 2012 

          Policy Committee:                              Public 
          SafetyVote:  4-2

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), when 
          reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole, to give "great 
          weight" (current law requires BPH to "consider") to any 
          information or evidence that, at the time of the crime that 
          occurred prior to August 29, 1996, the inmate experienced 
          intimate partner battering (IPB). This bill also:  
           
          1)Requires BPH to include in its annual report to the 
            Legislature and the Governor on related cases "specific and 
            detailed" findings of its investigations in cases where an 
            inmate experienced IPB at the time of the offense.

          2)Specifies that an inmate's evidence of IPB cannot be used to 
            support a finding that she - or he - lacks insight into the 
            crime and its causes.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)To the extent additional emphasis on IPB results in earlier 
            parole dates, there would be ongoing, indeterminable GF 
            savings. 

          2)Minor absorbable costs to BPH to add additional detail to its 
            existing annual report.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . The author's intent is to strengthen current parole 
            procedures regarding IPB, thereby increasing the odds for 
            recourse to rehabilitation for inmates who were abuse victims 








                                                                  AB 1593
                                                                  Page  2

            themselves.  

            In 1994, the Legislature enacted SB 499 (Burton) to give the 
            Board of Prison Terms (the predecessor agency to the BPH), 
            authority to consider IPB as a factor for parole suitability. 
            Under SB 499, BPH is required to report annually to the 
            Legislature and the governor on parole decisions involving 
            IPB.  

            The author contends the annual report is insufficient in terms 
            of the details of how the PPH evaluates the IPB evidence. 
            Moreover, according to the author, "Currently, when a domestic 
            violence victim is questioned by the parole board on the 
            crimes they committed, the victim often discusses the history 
            of their victimization and their prior abuse.  The Parole 
            Board often considers this acknowledgement of victimization as 
            "lack of insight" and denies their parole."

           2)Current law authorizes domestic violence victims to file 
            habeas corpus claims for crimes relating to IPB before January 
            1992  .  The California Supreme Court, however, did not hear an 
            IPB case until August 29, 1996, in People v. Humphrey.  This 
            bill amends the code to reflect the date of this decision.  

           3)The BPH  report re IPB cases reviewed in 2011 is a five-line 
            chart that shows five cases  .  Three "Did not meet criteria", 
            one was "Unsubstantiated",  and one was "Partially 
            substantiated". 

           4)Support  . 

             a)   According to the California Habeas Project, a coalition 
               formed to pursue justice for incarcerated domestic violence 
               victims, "AB 1593 will ensure that the Board of Parole 
               Hearings gives appropriate consideration to evidence of 
               domestic violence.  Sometimes, when a survivor presents 
               evidence of IPBE Ýintimate partner battering and its 
               effects] at her parole hearing, BPH uses it as a reason 
               that she is unsuitable for parole.  We have seen a number 
               of cases where due to a lack of understanding about 
               domestic violence, BPH has construed a survivor's 
               explanation of the link between her experience of abuse and 
               her involvement in the crime as 'lack of insight' into the 
               crime and its causes.  Moreover, the bill will ensure that 
               BPH gives "great weight" to evidence of IPBE."








                                                                  AB 1593
                                                                  Page  3


             b)   According to the California Public Defenders 
               Association, "Too often, recommendations against parole 
               release are made solely due to the charge being 
               homicide-related while placing little weight on evidence 
               showing that the victim was a domestic violence victim 
               whose charge was directly related or a result of the 
               battering experience.  AB 1593 steers the focus in the 
               right direction.  The Board of Parole Hearings should not 
               merely consider but should accord great weight to the 
               reports of prison psychologists and other clinicians as 
               well as evidence existing from trial proceedings showing 
               that he individual being considered for parole suitability 
               was a victim of intimate partner battering and its effects 
               and the committing offense was related to the battering 
               experience.

           5)Opposition  . According to the California District Attorneys 
            Association, "Under existing law, BPH is required to consider 
            such information or evidence regarding IPB, but no bias toward 
            the impact of such is expressed.  Additionally, existing law 
            (Penal Code section 1473.5) provides a special writ of habeas 
            corpus that may be prosecuted on the basis that expert 
            testimony relating to IPB and its effects was not received in 
            evidence at the trial court proceedings.  In this regard, we 
            feel that existing law adequately addresses the impacts of 
            IPB."







           Analysis Prepared by  :    Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081