BILL NUMBER: SB 687	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Senator Leno

                        FEBRUARY 18, 2011

   An act to add Section 1111.5 to the Penal Code, relating to
criminal procedure.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 687, as introduced, Leno. Criminal procedure: informants.
   Existing law provides that a conviction cannot be had upon the
testimony of an accomplice unless that testimony is corroborated by
such other evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the
commission of the offense and that corroboration is not sufficient if
it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances
thereof.
   This bill would additionally provide that a judge or jury may not
enter a judgment of conviction upon a criminal defendant, find a
special circumstance true, or use a fact in aggravation based solely
on the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant, as
defined. The bill would provide that corroboration shall not be
deemed sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense,
the special circumstance, or the circumstance in aggravation. The
bill would provide that the corroboration of an in-custody informant
shall not be provided by the testimony of another in-custody
informant.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 1111.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
   1111.5.  (a) A jury or judge may not convict a defendant, find a
special circumstance true, or use a fact in aggravation based on the
uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant. The testimony of
an in-custody informant shall be corroborated by other evidence that
connects the defendant with the commission of the offense, the
special circumstance, or the evidence offered in aggravation to which
the in-custody informant testifies. Corroboration is not sufficient
if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the special
circumstance or the circumstance in aggravation. Corroboration of an
in-custody informant shall not be provided by the testimony of
another in-custody informant unless the party calling the in-custody
informant as a witness establishes by a preponderance of the evidence
that the in-custody informant has not communicated with another
in-custody informant on the subject of the testimony.
   (b) As used in this section, "in-custody informant" means a
person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or
coconspirator, whose testimony is based on statements allegedly made
by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant were held
in within a city or county jail, state penal institution, or
correctional institution. Nothing in this section limits or changes
the requirements for corroboration of accomplice testimony pursuant
to Section 1111.