BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
4
7
SB 247 (Wyland)
As Amended March 21, 2011
Hearing date: March 29, 2011
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:mc
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
PROSECUTION AND COMMITMENT OF MINORS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED
SPECIFIED VEHICULAR CRIMES
HISTORY
Source: San Diego District Attorney
Prior Legislation: None specifically on point
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; Crime Victims
United of California; California District Attorneys
Association
Opposition:Youth Law Center; California Public Defenders
Association; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice;
American Civil Liberties Union
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WHILE INTOXICATED, AND CAUSING GREAT
BODILY INJURY WHILE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, AS SPECIFIED, BE
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageB
ADDED TO THE SECTION OF LAW THAT GIVES PROSECUTORS THE DISCRETION TO
PROSECUTE ELIGIBLE MINORS IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT AND MAKES A
JUVENILE OFFENDER ELIGIBLE FOR COMMITMENT TO THE STATE DIVISION OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to give prosecutors the discretion
to prosecute otherwise eligible minors directly in adult
criminal court instead of juvenile court for the crimes of
vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and causing great
bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, as specified. This bill also would make minors alleged
to have committed one of these offenses eligible for commitment
to the Division of Juvenile Justice.
Under current law , the purpose of juvenile court law "is to
provide for the protection and safety of the public and each
minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to
preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever
possible, removing the minor from the custody of his or her
parents only when necessary for his or her welfare or for the
safety and protection of the public." (Welfare and Institutions
Code ("WIC") § 202.)
Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court as a consequence of delinquent conduct
shall, in conformity with the interests of public
safety and protection, receive care, treatment,
and guidance that is consistent with their best
interest, that holds them accountable for their
behavior, and that is appropriate for their
circumstances. This guidance may include
punishment that is consistent with the
rehabilitative objectives of this chapter. (Id.)
Current law expressly defines the scope and nature of
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageC
"punishment" in the juvenile court:
As used in this chapter, "punishment" means the
imposition of sanctions. It shall not include a
court order to place a child in foster care as
defined by Section 727.3. Permissible sanctions
may include the following:
(1) Payment of a fine by the minor.
(2) Rendering of compulsory service without
compensation performed for the benefit of the
community by the minor.
(3) Limitations on the minor's liberty imposed
as a condition of probation or parole.
(4) Commitment of the minor to a local
detention or treatment facility, such as a
juvenile hall, camp, or ranch.
(5) Commitment of the minor to the Department
of the Youth Authority.
"Punishment," for the purposes of this chapter,
does not include retribution. (Id.)
Current law generally provides a statutory framework for
remanding cases in the juvenile court to adult criminal court.
(WIC § 707.) Depending upon the age of the minor, their offense
history, and the alleged offense, a minor may be ineligible for
juvenile court by statute (WIC § 602(b)); a minor may be subject
to prosecution in criminal court at the discretion of the
prosecutor (WIC § 707(d)); or a minor may be subject to remand
to adult criminal court upon a finding by the juvenile court
that the minor is unfit to be dealt with under juvenile court
law (WIC § 707(a).)
Current law sets forth a list of thirty offense categories
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageD
commonly referred to as "707(b) offenses."<1> This list of
offenses is a cross-reference which generally applies as
follows:
Prosecutors have the discretion to file an accusatory
pleading directly in adult court against any minor 16 years
of age or older who is accused of committing an offense
--------------------------
<1>1 WIC section 707(b) offenses are the following: (1) Murder;
(2) Arson, as specified; (3) Robbery; (4) Rape with force or
violence or threat of great bodily harm; (5) Sodomy by force,
violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm; (6)
Lewd or lascivious act with a child under 14, as specified; (7)
Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of
great bodily harm; (8) forcible sexual penetration, as
specified; (9) Kidnapping for ransom; (10) Kidnapping for
purpose of robbery; (11) Kidnapping with bodily harm; (12)
Attempted murder; (13) Assault with a firearm or destructive
device; (14) Assault by any means of force likely to produce
great bodily injury; (15) Discharge of a firearm into an
inhabited or occupied building; (16) Specified crimes against
older or physically disabled persons, as specified; (17)
Specified firearm offenses; (18) Any felony offense in which the
minor personally used a weapon, as specified; (19) specified
felonies involving victim intimidation; (20) Manufacturing,
compounding, or selling one-half ounce or more of any salt or
solution of a controlled substance, as specified; (21) Any
violent felony, as specified; (22) Escape, by the use of force
or violence, from any county juvenile hall, home, ranch, camp,
or forestry camp, as specified, where great bodily injury is
intentionally inflicted upon an employee of the juvenile
facility during the commission of the escape; (23) Torture, as
specified; (24) Aggravated mayhem, as specified; (25)
Carjacking, as specified, while armed with a dangerous or deadly
weapon; (26) Kidnapping, as specified; (27) Kidnapping relating
to carjacking, as specified; (28) specified offenses involving
firearms in vehicles; (29) Specified crimes involving explosive
devices; and (30) Voluntary manslaughter, as specified.
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageE
enumerated in 707(b);<2>
Prosecutors have the discretion to file an accusatory
pleading directly in adult court against any minor 14 years
of age or older where any of the following circumstances
apply:
o The minor is alleged to have committed an offense
that if committed by an adult would be punishable by
death or imprisonment in the state prison for life;
o The minor is alleged to have personally used a
-------------------------
<2> This prosecutorial discretion is limited by WIC section
602, which provides that certain crimes alleged to be committed
by minors 14 years of age or older can only be tried in adult
criminal court.
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageF
firearm during the commission or attempted commission of
a felony, as specified;
o The minor is alleged to have committed an offense
listed in WIC section 707(b) in which any one or more of
the following circumstances apply:
o The minor has previously been found to be
a delinquent ward of the court by reason of a WIC
section 707(b) offense;
o The offense was committed for the benefit
of, at the direction of, or in association with any
criminal street gang, as specified, with the
specific intent to promote, further, or assist in
criminal conduct by gang members.
o The offense was committed for the purpose
of intimidating or interfering with any other
person's free exercise or enjoyment of a right
secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of
this state or by the Constitution or laws of the
United States and because of the other person's
race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or
because the minor perceives that the other person
has one or more of those characteristics, as
specified;
o The victim of the offense was 65 years of
age or older, or blind, deaf, quadriplegic,
paraplegic, developmentally disabled, or confined to
a wheelchair, and that disability was known or
reasonably should have been known to the minor at
the time of the commission of the offense.
Prosecutors have the discretion to file an accusatory
pleading directly in adult court against any minor 16 years
of age or older who is accused of committing one or more of
the following offenses, if the minor has previously been
found to be a delinquent ward of the court by reason of the
violation of a felony offense, when he or she was 14 years
of age or older:
o A felony offense in which it is alleged that the
victim of the offense was 65 years of age or older, or
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageG
blind, deaf, quadriplegic, paraplegic, developmentally
disabled, or confined to a wheelchair, and that
disability was known or reasonably should have been known
to the minor at the time of the commission of the
offense.
o A felony offense committed for the purposes of
intimidating or interfering with any other person's free
exercise or enjoyment of a right secured to him or her by
the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and because of
the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, gender, or sexual
orientation, or because the minor perceived that the
other person had one or more of those characteristics, as
specified.
o The offense was committed for the benefit of, at the
direction of, or in association with any criminal street
gang as specified. (WIC § 707(d).)
Where the prosecutor elects to not prosecute a minor in
adult court pursuant to the direct filing provisions
described above and the minor subsequently is found to be a
delinquent ward of the court, current law requires that the
"the minor shall be committed to placement in a juvenile
hall, ranch camp, forestry camp, boot camp, or secure
juvenile home pursuant to Section 730, or in any
institution operated by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities." (WIC §
707(d)(5).)
Current law limits commitments from the juvenile court
to the Division of Juvenile Justice to minors found to have
committed an offense described in WIC section 707(b). (WIC
§ 1731.5.)
Current law , as noted above, also provides that a minor who is
16 years of age and older and is alleged to have committed any
crime can be found unfit for the juvenile court and remanded for
prosecution in adult criminal court. (WIC § 707(a).) "(T)he
juvenile court may find that the minor is not a fit and proper
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageH
subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law if it
concludes that the minor would not be amenable to the care,
treatment, and training program available through the facilities
of the juvenile court, based upon an evaluation of the following
criteria:
(A) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor.
(B) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
(C) The minor's previous delinquent history.
(D) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor.
(E) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in
the petition to have been committed by the minor. (Id.)
Under current law , in some circumstances a minor is presumed
unfit for the juvenile court. (WIC § 707(a)(2).) Minors 14
years of age and older alleged to have committed an offense
listed in section 707(b) are presumed unfit for the juvenile
court. (WIC § 707(c).) This presumption places on the minor
the burden of proof as to the nonexistence of the presumed fact
(unfitness for treatment under the juvenile law) and the minor's
burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the
evidence. ( People v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1981) 119
Cal. App. 3d 162.)
Under current law , a delinquent ward of the juvenile court may
be committed to the Department of Corrections, Division of
Juvenile Facilities, if the ward has committed an offense
described in WIC section 707(b), as specified. (WIC §§ 731,
733.)
This bill would add the following two offenses to WIC section
707(b):
Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, as described
in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 191.5 of the Penal
Code.
Causing great bodily injury while driving under the
influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug.
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageI
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageJ
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states in part:
Several accidents in San Diego County involving
juvenile DUI offenders brought attention to the lack
of flexibility within juvenile sentencing laws. In
2009, a juvenile drunk driver killed one 17-year-old
and injured another when his car, carrying four
passengers crashed and rolled several times. The
driver, who had a blood-alcohol content of at least
.10 percent, was sentenced to 547 days in juvenile
camp. He will only serve 283 days because of good
behavior.
In 2010, a 17-year-old drunk driver crashed into a
grandfather and his 18-month-old grandson. The
juvenile had a blood-alcohol content of .21 percent
(almost 3 times the legal limit for an adult over 21
years of age). The toddler was left brain damaged and
paralyzed from the waist down as a result of the
accident. The juvenile was sentenced to 480 days in
custody, the maximum penalty under current state law.
Another accident in 2010 involved a 17-year-old girl
who hit a stopped vehicle at 82 mph killing the
53-year-old driver. The teenager, who was involved in
a hit-and-run collision minutes before the accident
and had a history of drug abuse, was sentenced to 480
days in custody in a Youth Offenders Unit.
Current law, under Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 707, stipulates under what conditions the
District Attorney can directly file against a juvenile
in adult court. Certain felony crimes, listed under
Welfare and Institutions Code 707b and often referred
to as "707b offenses", are seen as serious enough to
potentially require consideration in adult court.
Rather than just directly filling in adult court for
707b offenses, a District Attorney can also request a
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageK
"fitness hearing" in order to allow the judge to
determine whether the juvenile is "unfit" to be
adjudicated as a juvenile. Specific criteria are
taken into consideration during a fitness hearing. The
judge will then determine whether the child can remain
in juvenile court. Murder and certain sex crimes
require a mandatory filing in adult court and do not
allow for an initial fitness hearing.
SB 247 would add to the list of "707b offenses" for
which a juvenile may be tried in adult court. The
bill would add (1) vehicular manslaughter while
intoxicated, and (2) causing great bodily injury while
driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage
or drug.
This bill would allow a District Attorney to either
file directly in adult court or request a fitness
hearing against a child who has committed either of
these offenses. This change would provide for
additional and alternative sentencing options in
juvenile criminal cases.
2. What This Bill Would Do; Difference From Current Law; Policy
Considerations
This bill would add two crimes to the WIC 707(b) list:
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageL
vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated,<3> and causing great
bodily injury while driving under the influence of any alcoholic
beverage or drug. As discussed below, this change would affect
how these crimes could be handled, and where a minor found to
have committed these crimes could be committed.
Minors who commit crimes generally are handled in the juvenile
court. As noted above, California law, as revised by
Proposition 21 in 2000, provides three discrete avenues for
trying minors 14 years of age or older in adult criminal court:
statutory waiver, under which certain crimes committed by minors
who have reached a minimum age (14 years) are statutorily
excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court (see WIC §
602); prosecutorial waiver, where prosecutors have the
discretion to file in either juvenile or adult court; and
judicial waiver, where upon petition the court may find a minor
unfit for juvenile court and remand the minor to criminal court.
Depending upon the circumstances of the case, a minor may have
---------------------------
<3> The vehicular manslaughter crimes this bill would add are
set forth in Penal Code section 191.5:
(a) Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the
unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought,
in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation
of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the
killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an
unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross
negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a
lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and
with gross negligence.
(b) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful
killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the
driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the
killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an
unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross
negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a
lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but
without gross negligence.
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageM
to overcome a burden presuming him or her to be unfit for the
juvenile court.
Under current California law, minors 14 years of age and older
alleged to have committed the crimes highlighted by this bill
can be tried in adult court if a court makes a finding of
unfitness. The current law requires prosecutors to petition the
court for such a finding. In addition, depending upon the
underlying circumstances of the case and the age of the minor,
current law may require that prosecutors prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that a minor is not fit for adult
court, as measured by the statutory fitness factors set forth
above. In some circumstances, the burden of proof may fall on
the minor to prove that he or she is fit for juvenile court.
This bill would allow prosecutors to file the DUI-related crimes
it describes directly in adult court, without having to go
through the fitness proceedings described above.
As members of the Committee consider this bill, they may wish to
explore the following questions with the author and proponents
of this measure:
SINCE CURRENT LAW ALREADY ALLOWS MINORS ACCUSED OF THESE CRIMES
TO BE PROSECUTED IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT, WHY IS THIS BILL
NECESSARY?
IN THE CASES CITED BY THE AUTHOR ABOVE, DID THE PROSECUTOR FILE
PETITIONS SEEKING TO REMAND THESE YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS TO ADULT
CRIMINAL COURT? IF NOT, WHY NOT? IF SO, WERE THESE MINORS
FOUND FIT FOR JUVENILE COURT?
IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE BURDEN TO THE STATE OF PROVING A
MINOR UNFIT FOR JUVENILE COURT UNDER WIC SECTION 707(A) IS TOO
GREAT TO OVERCOME IN APPROPRIATE CASES?
WHAT SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT EXPANDING PROSECUTORIAL
WAIVER IN THE MANNER PROPOSED BY THIS BILL?
WHAT SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT NOT EXPANDING PROSECUTORIAL
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageN
WAIVER IN THE MANNER PROPOSED BY THIS BILL?
In 2007, juvenile court admission criteria for DJJ was limited
to minors committed for a WIC section 707(b) offense. (SB 81
(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Ch. 175, Stats. 2007.)
In addition to the issues relating to direct file, this bill
also would expand eligibility for minors to be committed to the
Division of Juvenile Justice.
SHOULD MINORS ADJUDICATED IN THE JUVENILE COURT FOR THE CRIMES
SPECIFIED BY THIS BILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DJJ COMMITMENT?
At least one of the crimes included in this bill is a wobbler;
that is, in adult criminal court it could be prosecuted as a
misdemeanor punishable for not more than one year in county
jail.<4> Members may wish to discuss whether committing a minor
to DJJ, where the minor could remain in custody up to the age of
25, would be an appropriate outcome for a crime that could be
prosecuted as a misdemeanor in adult criminal court.
In addition, members may wish to discuss which specific crimes
the author intends to reach under this bill's language, "causing
great bodily injury while driving under the influence of any
alcoholic beverage or drug."<5>
SHOULD THE CRIMES SPECIFIED IN THIS BILL BE NARROWED AND MORE
SPECIFIC?
3. Opposition
The Youth Law Center, which opposes this bill, states in part:
While underage driving under the influence causes
heartbreaking tragedy when someone is hurt or killed,
trying the young driver in the adult system will only
----------------------
<4> Penal Code § 191.5(b).
<5> For example, the author may wish to revise this provision
to specify a violation of Vehicle Code section 23153 where there
is personal infliction of great bodily injury on any person, as
specified in Penal Code section 12022.7.
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageO
make things worse. The Task Force on Community
Preventive Services of the Centers for Disease Control
has found, based on a systematic review of the
research from six states, that trying juveniles as
adults increases rather than decreases rates of
violence among transferred youth. On the basis of the
findings, the Task Force recommended against laws or
policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the
adult criminal justice system for the purpose of
reducing violence. (Effects on Violence of Laws and
Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the
Juvenile to the Adult Justice System, MMWR, Nov. 30,
2007, Vol. 56, No. RR-9.)
These findings are hardly surprising. Youth tried in
the adult system are relegated to adult jails or
prisons that are ill-equipped to serve them. They are
either isolated from the mainstream population and
suffer sensory deprivation and mental deterioration;
or they are mixed in with an older inmate population
that preys on them or teaches them how to be
criminals. Adult facilities are unable to offer
required education and special education services, age
appropriate activities, or mental health services
provided by adolescent specialists. Only a tiny
proportion of inmates of any age receive vocational
training, substance abuse treatment, or other services
needed to successfully reintegrate into the community.
. . .
Furthermore, the crimes of intoxication-related
manslaughter and injury go hand in hand with the
risk-taking, and lack of impulse control associated
with
adolescence. Recognizing that juvenile lack mature
judgment and have an underdeveloped sense of
responsibility, the United States Supreme Court has
struck down capital punishment and Life without the
(More)
SB 247 (Wyland)
PageP
Possibility of Parole in non-homicide cases for
juveniles who committed much more heinous crimes. In
so
ruling, the Court has recognized that there are
fundamental differences between
the development of adult brains and adolescent brains,
and the part of the brain involved in behavior control
may not mature until late adolescence. (Roper v.
Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, Graham v. Florida (2010)
560 U.S. __.) The substance-related driving offenses
singled out by S.B. 247 are particularly indicative of
immature judgment.
. . .
While we share the author's concern with the tragic
effects of underage driving under the influence,
trying more juveniles as adults is a well-meaning, but
misguided "solution." We respectfully urge a "No"
vote.
***************
(More)