BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A 2013-2014 Regular Session B 1 8 4 AB 184 (Gatto) As Amended May 24, 2013 Hearing date: June 25, 2013 Penal Code MK:mc STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislation: SB 387 (La Malfa) - held in Sen. Public Safety (ROCA) AB 2484 (Davis) - not heard in Sen. Public Safety (ROCA) Support: California District Attorneys Association; California State Sheriffs' Association Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 0 KEY ISSUE SHOULD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FLEEING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS DEATH OR PERMANENT INJURY BE EITHER THE EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR ONE YEAR AFTER THE PERSON IS INITIALLY IDENTIFIED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A SUSPECT, WHICHEVER IS LATER? (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageB PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to allow for a longer statute of limitations when a person flees the scene of an accident where death or permanent injury has occurred. Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable by death or life without the possibility of parole, or for embezzling public money, may be commenced at any time. (Penal Code § 799.) Existing law provides that prosecution for any offense for which the person would be required to register as a sex offender shall be commenced within 10 years after commission of the offense (unless otherwise provided under law, as specified; see §§ 801.1, 801.3). (Penal Code § 801.5.) Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable by eight years in prison shall be commenced within six years after the commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 800.) Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense involving elder or dependent adult abuse, except involving theft or embezzlement, shall be prosecuted within five years after the commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 801.6.) Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense involving fraud, breach of fiduciary duty or official misconduct, as specified, shall be prosecuted within four years after discovery of the offense or completion of the offense, whichever is later. (Penal Code § 801.5.) Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, unless otherwise specified, shall be commenced within three years of the commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 801.) Existing law provides that prosecution for misdemeanors, except (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageC as otherwise specified, shall commence within one year after commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 802.) This bill provides that whenever a person flees an accident that causes death or permanent, serious injury, a criminal complaint may be filed within the applicable time period or one year after the person is initially identified by law enforcement as a suspect in the commission of the offense, whichever is later. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances. Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and difficult decisions for the Committee. In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". . (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageD . population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year. In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31, 2013." The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the prison population that have been made, although even greater reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following questions will inform this consideration: whether a measure erodes realignment; whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or legislative drafting error; whether a measure proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy; and whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy. (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageE COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: Current law sets the statute of limitations for a hit-and-run at three years after commission of the offense. This has provided a perverse incentive for some to flee the scene of an accident rather than take responsibility for their actions. These culprits can essentially run out the clock on the statute of limitations by remaining unidentified after one of these incidents. 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, in part because of the statute of limitations running out. 2. The Statute of Limitations Generally; Law Revision Commission Report The statute of limitations requires commencement of a prosecution within a certain period of time after the commission of a crime. A prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment or information, filing a complaint, certifying a case to (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageF superior court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant. (Penal Code § 804.) The failure of a prosecution to be commenced within the applicable period of limitation 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. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13. The defense may only be waived under limited circumstances. (See Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.) The Legislature enacted the current statutory scheme regarding statutes of limitations for crimes in 1984 in response to a report of the California Law Revision Commission: The Commission identified various factors to be considered in drafting a limitations statute. These factors include: (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. The Commission concluded that a felony limitations statute generally should be based on the seriousness of the crime. Seriousness is easily determined based on classification of a crime as felony or misdemeanor and the punishment specified, and a scheme based on seriousness generally will accommodate the other factors as well. Also, the simplicity of a limitations period based on seriousness provides predictability and (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageG promotes uniformity of treatment.<1> 3. Statute of Limitations for Fleeing an Accident Causing Injury or Death Existing law prohibits fleeing the scene of an accident. If a person flees an accident that caused death or permanent serious injury, the person is guilty of a wobbler punished by two, three or four years in state prison, or in county jail for 90 days to one year. (Vehicle Code § 20001 (b)(2).) The statute of limitations would be 3 years after the commission of the offense, unless it was charged initially as a misdemeanor, in which case it would be one year. The existing 3-year limitations period seems consistent with the sentencing provisions applicable to this crime and with the recommendations of the Law Revision Commission. This bill provides that in addition to the existing statute of limitations, when a person flees the scene of an accident where there was death or permanent injury, the statute of limitations is either the existing statute of limitations or one year after the person is initially identified by law enforcement as a suspect in the commission of the offense, whichever is later. 4. Prison Impact Considerations The Assembly Appropriations Committee's analysis of this bill included the following information concerning its potential to impact the prison system: Unknown potential increase in state prison commitments for fleeing the scene of an accident that causes death or serious injury, to the extent this bill results in additional convictions and commitments. In 2011 and 2012, a total of 67 persons were committed to state prison for this offense. If this bill increases that number by five percent, annual GF costs would increase by about $200,000 in two years, assuming a midterm sentence of two years. ----------------------- <1> 1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses, Section 214 (3rd Ed. 2004), citing 17 Cal. Law Rev. Com. Reports, pp.308-314. (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageH 5. Opposition The ACLU opposes this bill stating: Criminal statutes of limitation are laws that limit the time during which a prosecution may be commenced. These statutes have been in operation for over three hundred fifty years and are deeply rooted in our American judicial system. Several public policy arguments underlie the reasoning behind statutes of limitation. First, they ensure that prosecutions are based upon reasonably fresh evidence - the idea being 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 limitation may reduce the possibility of blackmail based on threats to disclose information to prosecutors or law enforcement officials. (More) The United States Supreme Court also expressed concerns for fairness in commencing stale prosecutions: A statute of limitations reflects a legislative judgment that, after a certain time, no quantum of evidence is sufficient to convict. And that judgment typically rests, in large part, upon evidentiary concerns - for example, concern that the passage of time has eroded memories or made witnesses or other evidence unavailable. (Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607, 615 [123 S.Ct. 2446].) The Court held that a law reviving tolled statutes of limitation deprives the defendant of the "fair warning" that might have led him or her to preserve exculpatory evidence, and warned that "a Constitution that permits such an extension by allowing legislatures to pick and choose when to act retroactively, risks both arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation." (Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S., at 616; United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 122 [86 S.Ct. 773]) (holding that statutes of limitation are the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale charges).) This bill specifies that any prosecution for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death or serious injury may commence one year after the alleged suspect is identified. 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 (More) AB 184 (Gatto) PageJ 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, 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. ***************