BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1593| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1593 Author: Ma (D) Amended: 3/29/12 in Assembly Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 6/12/12 AYES: Hancock, Liu, Price, Steinberg NOES: Anderson, Harman NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-20, 5/10/12 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Parole: intimate partner battering SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), when reviewing a prisoners suitability for parole, to give great weight to any information or evidence that, at the time of the commission of the crime, the prisoner had experienced intimate partner battering and provide that they cannot use the fact that the prisoner brought in the evidence to find that a prisoner lacks insight to his or her crime. ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that at all hearings for the purpose of reviewing a prisoner's parole suitability, or the setting, postponing, or rescinding of parole dates, CONTINUED AB 1593 Page 2 with the exception of en banc review of tie votes, the following shall apply: At least 10 days prior to any hearing by BPH, the prisoner shall be permitted to review his or her file which will be examined by the BPH and shall have the opportunity to enter a written response to any material contained in the file. The prisoner shall be permitted to be present, to ask and answer questions, and to speak on his or her own behalf. Neither the prisoner nor the attorney for the prisoner shall be entitled to ask questions of any person appearing at the hearing. Unless legal counsel is required by some other provision of law, a person designated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall be present to ensure that all facts relevant to the decision be presented, including, if necessary, contradictory assertions as to matters of fact that have not been resolved by departmental or other procedures. The prisoner and any victim or next of kin shall be permitted to request and receive a stenographic record of all proceedings. If the hearing is for the purpose of postponing or rescinding of parole dates, the prisoner shall have right to have witnesses called, unless the person conducting the hearing has specific reasons to deny this request, and the prisoner shall have the right to question all witnesses. The BPH shall set a date to reconsider whether an inmate should be released on parole that ensures a meaningful consideration of whether the inmate is suitable for release on parole. (Penal Code (PEN) Section 3041.5(a)) Existing law requires at any hearing for the purpose of setting, postponing, or rescinding a parole release date of a prisoner under a life sentence, the prisoner shall be entitled to be represented by counsel. BPH shall provide by rule for the invitation of the prosecutor of the county AB 1593 Page 3 from which the prisoner was committed, or his representative, to represent the interests of the people at the hearing. BPH shall notify the prosecutor and the Attorney General at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. (PEN Section 3041.4) Existing law states that the hearing shall be conducted as a de novo hearing. Findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing shall be considered in but shall not be deemed to be binding upon subsequent parole hearings for an inmate, but shall be subject to reconsideration based upon changed facts and circumstances. When conducting a hearing, the BPH shall admit the prior recorded or memorialized testimony or statement of a victim or witness, upon request of the victim or if the victim or witness has died or become unavailable. At each hearing the BPH shall determine the appropriate action to be taken based on the criteria set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 3041. (PEN Section 3041.5(c)) Existing law states that BPH, in deciding whether to release the person on parole, shall consider the entire and uninterrupted statements of the victim or victims, next of kin, immediate family members of the victim, and the designated representatives of the victim or next of kin, if applicable, made pursuant to this section and shall include in its report a statement whether the person would pose a threat to public safety if released on parole. (PEN Section 3043(d)) Existing law requires BPH to record parole hearings and transcribe recordings of those hearings within 30 days of any hearing. Those transcripts, including the transcripts of all prior hearings, shall be filed and maintained in the office of the Board of Prison Terms and shall be made available to the public no later than 30 days from the date of the hearing. No prisoner shall actually be released on parole prior to 60 days from the date of the hearing. At any hearing, the presiding hearing officer shall state his/her findings and supporting reasons on the record. (PEN Section 3042(b) and (c)) Existing law states that in a criminal action, expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the AB 1593 Page 4 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, except when offered against a criminal defendant to prove the occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis of the criminal charge. (Evidence Code Section 1107(a)) Existing law authorizes BPH to report to the Governor, from time to time, the names of any and all persons imprisoned in any state prison who, in its judgment, ought to have a commutation of sentence or be pardoned and set at liberty on account of good conduct, or unusual term of sentence, or any other cause, including evidence of intimate partner battering and its effects. Defines "intimate partner battering and its effects" to include evidence of the nature and effects of physical, emotional, or mental abuse upon the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic violence where it appears the criminal behavior was the result of that victimization. (PEN Section 4801(a)) This bill provides that BPH shall give great weight to any information or evidence that at the time of the commission of the crime, the prisoner had experienced intimate partner battering, but was convicted of an offence that occurred prior to August 29, 1996. Existing law requires BPH, in reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole to consider any information or evidence that, at the time of the commission of the crime, the prisoner had experienced intimate partner battering, but was convicted of the offense prior to the enactment of Evidence Code Section 1107. The BPH shall state on the record the information or evidence that it considered pursuant to this subdivision, and the reasons for the parole decision. The BPH shall annually report to the Legislature and the Governor on the cases the BPH considered pursuant to this subdivision during the previous year, including the BPH's decision and the findings of its investigations of these cases. (PEN Section 4801(b)(1)) This bill mandates BPH to include in its annual report to the Legislature and the Governor specific and detailed AB 1593 Page 5 findings of its investigations of cases where a prisoner had experienced intimate partner battering at the time of the offense. This bill states that the fact that a prisoner has presented evidence of intimate partner battering cannot be used to support a finding that the prisoner lacks insight into his/her crime and its causes. Prior Legislation AB 220 (Assembly Public Safety Committee), Chapter 215, Statutes of 2005 SB 499 (Burton), Chapter 652, Statutes of 2000 AB 231 (Kuehl), Chapter 905, Statutes of 1995 AB 3436 (Friedman), Chapter 1138, Statutes of 1992 FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 6/25/12) California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Catholic Conference, Inc. California Habeas Project California Public Defenders Association Legal Services for Prisoners with Children OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/25/12) California District Attorneys Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author: Under current law, the Board of Prison Terms, also known as the Parole Board, has the authority to consider IPB as a factor in the suitability of the prisoner's parole. Under SB 499 (2000), the Board is also required to make a finding in the record on the facts considered by the Parole Board. The Parole Board is then required to report annually to the Legislature and the Governor on the parole decisions involving IPB. However, the Parole Board's report does not offer concrete details of how the Parole Board evaluates the IPB claims. AB 1593 Page 6 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. In 2001, California enacted SB 799 to allow domestic violence victims to file habeas corpus claims for crimes relating to IPB before January 1992. However, the California Supreme Court did not hear an IPB case until August 29, 1996, in People v. Humphrey. Later the Legislature changed Penal Code Section 1473.5 to reflect the date of this decision. However, Penal Code Section 4801 referring to IPB in Parole Board hearings has not been amended to reflect the date of the Court's decision. AB 1593 requires that the parole board give great weight to any information or evidence that proves the prisoner experienced intimate partner battering (IPB) and its effects at the time the crime was committed. AB 1593 ensures the date the crime took place is consistent with date established in current IPB statute (Penal Code 1473.5). AB 1593 will also prohibit the parole board commissioners from using "lack of insight" as evidence to deny suitability in cases involving IPB. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District Attorneys Association states: 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. AB 1593 Page 7 This bill effectively gives a person who has previously filed an unsuccessful writ of habeas corpus based on IPB the ability to use the same evidence to attempt gain release from incarceration a second time. We have not heard a convincing reason why such evidence should be given more consideration than the statute currently provides at a parole suitability hearing when it did not result in habeas relief under existing law. Further, in this particular case, we feel it is inappropriate to direct BPH operations legislatively by expressing a bias toward evidence of IPB, especially if such evidence was unconvincing to a court in a habeas proceeding. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-20, 5/10/12 AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Halderman, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Pan, Perea, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NOES: Achadjian, Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Blumenfield, Cook, Fletcher, Furutani, Gorell, Jeffries, Olsen, V. Manuel Pérez RJG:m 6/25/12 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****