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