BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 184
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 12, 2013
Counsel: Shaun Naidu
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 184 ( Gatto) - As Introduced: January 28, 2013
SUMMARY : Provides that if a person flees the scene of an
accident that causes permanent, serious injury or results in a
vehicular manslaughter, as specified, the statute of limitations
to begin prosecution, in addition to current time limitations,
is extended to within one year after law enforcement initially
identifies the suspect. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, in addition to filing a criminal complaint
within the existing statute of limitations, if a person flees
the scene of an accident that caused permanent, serious
injury, as specified, a criminal complaint may be filed within
one year after the person is initially identified by law
enforcement as a suspect in the commission the offense.
2)Provides that, in addition to filing a criminal complaint
within the existing statute of limitations, if a person flees
the scene of an accident that results in a vehicular
manslaughter, as specified, a criminal complaint may be filed
within one year after the person is initially identified by
law enforcement as a suspect in the commission of the offense.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that vehicular manslaughter is the unlawful killing of
a human being without malice while (i) driving a vehicle in
the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony,
and with gross negligence or (ii) driving a vehicle in the
commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an
unlawful manner, and with gross negligence. [Penal Code
section 192, subd. (c), par. (1).] States that violation of
this offense is punishable by either imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment in
the state prison for two, four or six years. [Penal Code
section 193, subd. (c), par. (1).]
AB 184
Page 2
2)States that vehicular manslaughter also is the unlawful
killing of a human being without malice while (i) driving a
vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to
a felony, but without gross negligence or (ii) driving a
vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce
death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.
[Penal Code section 192, subd. (c), par. (2).] States that
violation of this offense is punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year. [Penal Code section
193, subd. (c), par. (2).]
3)Defines "permanent, serious injury" as the loss or permanent
impairment of function of a bodily member or organ. [Vehicle
Code section 20001, subd. (d).]
4)Requires that prosecution for an offense punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison or county jail pursuant to
realignment under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h) be
commenced within three years after commission of the offense,
except as specified. [Penal Code section 801.]
5)Requires that prosecution for an offense not punishable by
death or imprisonment in the state prison or county jail
pursuant to realignment under Penal Code section 1170,
subdivision (h) be commenced within one year after commission
of the offense, except as specified. [Penal Code section 802,
subd. (a).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "hit-and-run
accidents have received little attention over the years, but
they have run rampant in cities like Los Angeles. A recent
investigation by L.A. Weekly found that nearly 20,000
hit-and-run crashes - everything from fender benders to
multiple fatalities - are recorded annually by the Los Angeles
Police Department. These incidents made up an astonishing 48
percent of all vehicle crashes in 2009, compared to an average
rate of just 11 percent nationwide. Data collected by the
state shows 4,000 hit-and-run incidents a year in Los Angeles
city limits lead to injury or death.
"Unfortunately, many of these incidents are never prosecuted,
AB 184
Page 3
in part because of the statute of limitations running out.
"AB 184 would extend the statute of limitations if a person
flees the scene of an accident that causes death or serious
bodily injury to three years after the offense or one year
after the suspect is initially identified by law enforcement,
whichever is later.
"The aftermath for hit-and-run victims who sustain serious
injuries and families of those who lose their loved ones is life
changing. Many survivors are left with catastrophic injuries that
leave them unable to work or lead normal lives for significant
periods of time. Though many of these victims can never be made
whole, this measure would provide law enforcement additional
flexibility to identify perpetrators and prosecute them for their
crimes."
2)Statute of Limitations : Criminal statutes of limitations are
laws that limit the time during which a prosecution can be
commenced. A prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment
or information, filing a complaint, arraigning a defendant
charged with a felony, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant.
[Penal Code section 804.] If prosecution is not commenced
within the applicable period of limitation, it is a complete
defense to the charge. The statute of limitations is
jurisdictional and may be raised as a defense at any time
before or after judgment. [People v. McGee (1934) 1 Cal.2d
611, 613.] The defense may be waived only under limited
circumstances for the benefit of the defendant. [Cowan v.
Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367, 370.]
Statutes of limitations have been in operation for over 350
years and are deeply rooted in the American legal system.
"There are several rationales underlying statutes of
limitations. First, they ensure that prosecutions are based
upon reasonably fresh evidence. The idea is that over time,
memories fade, witnesses die or leave the area, and physical
evidence becomes more difficult to obtain, identify, or
preserve. In short, the possibility of erroneous conviction
is minimized when prosecution is prompt. Second, statutes of
limitations encourage law enforcement officials to investigate
suspected criminal activity in a timely fashion. In addition,
it is thought that [statutes of limitations] may reduce the
possibility of blackmail based on threats to disclose
information to prosecutors or law enforcement officials.
AB 184
Page 4
Another rationale is that as time goes by, the likelihood
increases that an offender has reformed, making punishment
less necessary. In addition, society's retributive impulse
may lessen over time, making punishment less desirable.
Finally, there is the thought that statutes of limitations
provide an overall sense of security and stability to human
affairs." [Lauren Kerns, Incorporating Tolling Provisions
into Sex Crimes Statutes of Limitations, 13 Temp. Pol. & Civ.
Rts. L. Rev. 325, 327 (2003) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).]
In considering revisions to California's statutes of
limitations, the California Law Revision Commission identified
five factors to be considered by the Legislature in drafting a
limitations statute: "(a) The staleness factor. A person
accused of crime should be protected from having to face
charges based on possibly unreliable evidence and from losing
access to the evidentiary means to defend. (b) The repose
factor. This reflects society's lack of a desire to prosecute
for crimes committed in the distant past. (c) The motivation
factor. This aspect of the statute imposes a priority among
crimes for investigation and prosecution. (d) The seriousness
factor. The statute of limitations is a grant of amnesty to a
defendant; the more serious the crime, the less willing
society is to grant that amnesty. (e) The concealment factor.
Detection of certain concealed crimes may be quite difficult
and may require long investigations to identify and prosecute
the perpetrators." [1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses Section
234 (3rd ed. 2010), citing 17 Cal. Law Rev. Com. Reports,
pp.308-311.]
This bill would allow the statute of limitations to be tolled,
or paused, in circumstances in which a suspected vehicular
manslaughter or permanent, serious injury has occurred and the
individual accused of the crime is unknown to law enforcement
because he or she has fled the scene of the incident.
3)Arguments in Support :
a) According to the California Bicycle Coalition , "The
inherent nature of the hit-and-run crash lends itself to
the potential of there being no witnesses and difficult
gathering evidence. By extending the statute of
limitations for hit-and-run offenses to three years after
the incident or a year after the suspect is identified, law
AB 184
Page 5
enforcement officials are given crucial flexibility in
seeking to file charges."
b) According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Office , "Currently, the statute of limitations encourages
flight and discourages rendering aid. As it now exists,
the statute of limitations provides an incentive for
vehicle manslaughter suspects to flee the scene of serious
traffic accidents in order to avoid identification and
possible prosecution. ? Presently, if a suspect can
remain unidentified for three years, the only available
possible charges not barred by the statute of limitations,
are murder or voluntary manslaughter (charges that may be
inappropriate to the circumstances or unsupported by the
evidence)."
4)Arguments in Opposition : According to the American Civil
Liberties Union of California , "In practical terms,
prosecutors could allege a person left the scene of an
accident ten years prior, but where the charged person was
only identified six months before. This makes it virtually
impossible for a person to mount a competent defense given
that he or she may not even remember the circumstances. This
presents a fundamental unfairness to the defendant and may
result in erroneous convictions.
"Moreover, statutory exceptions to the general three year felony
rule only exist where DNA evidence may reveal a suspect long
after the crime is committed. (Cal. Penal Code § 803(g).)
However, in the case of leaving the scene of an accident or
vehicular manslaughter, DNA is not likely to play a
significant factor in identifying a suspect. These types of
cases are usually solved by questioning witnesses at the
scene, reviewing any available traffic cameras, and using
accident reconstruction to re-creating the event. Hence, no
exception seems warranted in this case, particularly given the
legal precedent favoring short statutes of limitation."
5)Related Legislation : SB 131 (Beall) would eliminate the
statutes of limitations for the recovery of damages suffered
as a result of sexual child abuse, as specified. SB 131 is
pending a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
6)Previous Legislation :
AB 184
Page 6
a) AB 2484 (Davis) of 2012 would have allowed the filing of
a criminal complaint for vehicular manslaughter, as
specified, within one year after a person is initially
identified by law enforcement as a suspect in that offense
or within three years after the commission of the offense,
whichever is later, when the person flees from the scene of
the accident. AB 2484 was never heard by the Senate Public
Safety Committee.
b) SB 387 (LaMalfa) of 2012 would have extended the statute
of limitations for a criminal prosecution for fleeing an
accident where injury or death occurred to six years. SB
387 died in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Bicycle Coalition
California WALKS
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
NoHitandRuns.org
Office of the Sheriff of San Bernardino County
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Analysis Prepared by : Shaun Naidu / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744