BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair

                                          SB 428 (Strickland)
          
          Hearing Date: 05/26/2011        Amended: 05/17/2011
          Consultant: Jolie Onodera       Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0
          
















































          _________________________________________________________________
          ____
          BILL SUMMARY: SB 428 is the public safety omnibus bill of 
          non-controversial changes to statute that are primarily 
          technical and non-substantive changes in various code sections 
          relating generally to criminal justice laws. This bill would 
          also provide for a change to the exception to the two dismissal 
          rule which bars further prosecution of a felony and would also 
          recast the specific cases under which a new trial may be granted 
          when a verdict has been rendered against a defendant. This bill 
          would also expand the scope of various existing misdemeanor 
          crimes.
          _________________________________________________________________
          ____
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2011-12      2012-13       2013-14     Fund
           
          Reallocation of POST   Up to $100 annually; no net 
          impactGeneral**
          funds                  to CalEPA appropriation of funds

          **Environmental Enforcement and Training Account        
          _________________________________________________________________
          ____

          STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.  AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. 

          Existing law provides a two dismissal rule which bars further 
          prosecution of a felony if the action has twice previously been 
          terminated pursuant to that statute's provisions.  However, 
          Penal Code section 1387(c) provides an exception to the two 
          dismissal rule and states that an order terminating an action is 
          not a bar to prosecution if a complaint is dismissed before the 
          commencement of a preliminary hearing in favor of an indictment 
          filed pursuant to Section 944  and the  indictment is based upon 
          the same subject matter as charged in the dismissed complaint, 
          information, or indictment. 

          This bill would revise the existing language to separate the 
          clause into two separate conditions, and could expand the number 
          of exceptions to the two dismissal rule, resulting in an unknown 
          but potentially significant increase in criminal filings 
          resulting in additional state court costs of an unknown amount. 
          Further, to the extent increased criminal filings result in 
          additional convictions would result in increased state 








          SB 428 (Strickland)
          Page 3

          incarceration costs. If one additional felony conviction 
          occurred in each of the next five years, the annual cost of 
          those five inmates during the fifth year would be $145,000.

          Existing law provides that when a verdict has been rendered or a 
          finding made against a defendant, the court may, upon the 
          defendant's application, grant a new trial, under limited 
          specified cases. Under existing law, the fifth enumerated 
          circumstance under which a new trial may be granted occurs when 
          the court has misdirected the jury in a matter of law, or has 
          erred in the decision of any question of law arising during the 


          course of the trial, and when the district attorney or other 
          counsel prosecuting the case has been guilty of prejudicial 
          misconduct during the trial thereof before a jury. 

          This bill has recast this provision into two separate cases 
          under which a new trial may be granted, either 1) when the court 
          has misdirected the jury in a matter of law or has erred in the 
          decision of any question of law arising during the course of the 
          trial; or, 2) when the district attorney or other counsel 
          prosecuting the case has been guilty of prejudicial misconduct. 
          By expanding the circumstances under which a new trial may be 
          granted could result in an increased number of new trials and 
          associated state court costs of an unknown but potentially 
          significant amount. To the extent the re-trials could result in 
          findings in favor of the defendant could also result in state 
          and county incarceration cost savings.

          Existing law directs California Environmental Protection Agency 
          (CalEPA) to provide the Commission on Peace Officers Standards 
          and Training (POST) a portion of the Environmental Enforcement 
          and Training Account funds for the development of environmental 
          crimes training for peace officers. This bill would allow the 
          POST Commission to decline all or part of their annual 
          allocation of funds, and those funds shall be reallocated by the 
          Secretary to other entities listed in the title, including 
          CalEPA, the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project, or the 
          California District Attorneys Association, for the training of 
          peace officers in environmental crimes. The amount allocated to 
          POST has steadily decreased from $100,000 in 2005 through 2007, 
          $32,000 in 2008, $72,000 in 2009, to $17,557 in 2010-11. CalEPA 
          staff has indicated the amount to remain at this level or lower 
          for the next two to three years. This provision could result in 








          SB 428 (Strickland)
          Page 4

          a maximum of $100,000 to be shifted from POST, at their 
          discretion, however, there is no net fiscal impact to the level 
          of funds appropriated to CalEPA.
          
          The author's amendments would remove the two provisions 
          incurring additional state costs:
                 Deletes the section of the bill amending Penal Code 
               section 1387(c) which provides an exception to the two 
               dismissal rule;
                 Deletes the section of the bill amending Penal Code 
               section 1181 which enumerates the specific cases under 
               which a new trial may be granted to a defendant; and
                 Makes minor technical corrections.