BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1357| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1357 Author: Cannella (R) Amended: 5/8/12 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 3/27/12 AYES: Hancock, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/1/12 AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno SUBJECT : Removal from office: grand jury accusation SOURCE : Monterey County Office of the District Attorney DIGEST : This bill provides that the grand jury presenting the accusation against an officer for willful or corrupt misconduct in office may also be a criminal grand jury. ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which it annexed, upon conviction, either of the following punishments: Death. Imprisonment. Fine. Removal from office; or CONTINUED SB 1357 Page 2 Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit in this state. (Penal Code Section 15) Existing law provides that ?İt]he first pleading on the part of the people in a proceeding pursuant to Section 3060 of the Government Code is an accusation. (Penal Code Section 949) Existing law provides that every superior court, whenever in its opinion the public interest so requires, shall draw a grand jury. (Penal Code Section 904) Existing law provides that presiding judge in a county with a population between 370,000 and 400,000 may impanel one additional grand jury upon application by the district attorney. (Penal Code Section 904.4) Existing law authorizes the presiding judge of the superior court, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge to supervise the grand jury to, upon the request of the Attorney General or the district attorney or upon his/her own motion, order and direct the impanelment, of one additional grand jury, as specified. (Penal Code Section 904.6) Existing law provides that notwithstanding Penal Code Section 904.6, the presiding judge of the superior court of the County of Los Angeles may impanel up to two additional grand juries upon the request of the Attorney General or the district attorney. (Penal Code Section 904.8) Existing law sets for the procedure for convicting someone of willful or corrupt misconduct in office and removal from office for the conduct. (Government Code Sections 3060-3071) Existing law provides that an accusation in writing against any officer of a district, county, or city including any member of the governing board or personnel commission of a school district or any humane officer for willful or corrupt misconduct in office, may be presented by the grand jury of the county for, or in, which the officer accused is elected or appointed. (Government Code Section 3060) CONTINUED SB 1357 Page 3 This bill provides that a criminal grand jury, as impaneled pursuant to Penal Code Sections 904.4, 904.6, or 904.8 may be the grand jury that presents the above accusation. This bill updates the existing law provision regarding the concurrence necessary among grand juries of different sizes to result in an accusation, in order to account for counties which the number of grand jury members is 23. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 5/8/12) Monterey County Office of the District Attorney (source) California District Attorneys Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author: Under current law, district attorneys have the option to remove public officials from office via a civil grand jury comprised of specially selected citizens or a criminal grand jury chosen randomly and impartially. Because case law is unclear as to whether an accusation is civil or criminal in nature, there is question of whether a civil or criminal grand jury is the appropriate tool. In the 1970s, appellate courts began dismissing rulings made by specially selected civil grand juries deeming accusations to be criminal in nature. However, in 1993 the Attorney General opined that criminal grand juries could not handle civil matters. Thus, if an accusation was found to be a civil matter, the ruling from a criminal grand jury could be dismissed. As a result, it could take years of litigation and expense for the courts to determine which type of grand jury should make the ultimate decision regarding an accusation against a public official. SB 1357 grants the responsibility of presenting such an accusation to a criminal grand jury, thus ensuring that public officials guilty of willful or corrupt misconduct can be safely removed from office without the accusation CONTINUED SB 1357 Page 4 being dismissed on procedural grounds. The bill' sponsor, the Monterey County Office of the District Attorney, writes, "The question İof] whether an accusation is civil or criminal in nature has a direct impact on which grand jury can present an accusation. İThe Attorney General's 1993 opinion] supports the argument that a criminal grand jury cannot present an accusation. On the other hand, an accusation presented by a specially selected civil grand jury would probably be attacked as a violation of constitutional due process. The trial or appellate court ruling on the issue could very well side with the earlier cases describing an accusation as criminal in nature and, therefore, subject to all the due process requirements for criminal prosecutions. All of this puts district attorneys in a quandary. ?Rather than risk years of litigation and much expense to settle this issue, the legislature could solve the problem now by specifying which grand jury may present an accusation." RJG:mw 5/9/12 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED