BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1900| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1900 Author: Quirk (D) Amended: 3/27/14 in Assembly Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/10/14 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg NO VOTE RECORDED: Mitchell SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Victims of sex crimes: video recording of testimony SOURCE : Alameda County District Attorney DIGEST : This bill makes a technical change to modernize the recording and preservation requirements of admissible, recorded court testimony by replacing the term videotape" with "video recording." ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1.Provides that when a defendant is charged with specified sex offenses, child abuse, lewd and lascivious acts on a child, CONTINUED AB 1900 Page 2 and the victim either is a person 15 years of age or less or is developmentally disabled as a result of an intellectual disability, as specified, the people may apply for an order that the victim's testimony at the preliminary hearing, in addition to being stenographically recorded, be recorded and preserved on videotape. 2.Establishes that a videotape prepared for court testimony is subject to a protective order of the court to protect the privacy of the victim and must be made available to the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and his/her attorney for viewing during business hours. The videotape is to be destroyed five years from the date of judgment, unless an appeal is filed. 3.Provides that when a defendant is charged with spousal rape or infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic injury to a spouse, former spouse, or domestic partner, the people may apply for an order that the victim's testimony at the preliminary hearing, in addition to being stenographically recorded, be recorded and preserved on videotape. If the victim's testimony at the preliminary hearing is admissible, the videotape recording may be introduced as evidence at trial. 4.Provides that when a defendant is charged with a sexual or otherwise specified offense upon an adult or child with a disability, the court may use its discretion to make accommodations to support the victim, and the prosecutor may apply for an order that the testimony of the person with a disability at the preliminary hearing, in addition to being stenographically recorded, be recorded and preserved on videotape. This bill makes a technical change to specified recording and preservation requirements by replacing the term "videotape" with "video recording." Comments According to the author: AB 249 (Cunneen) Chapter 19, Statutes of 1997 authorized video-recorded witness testimony to be used at trial. CONTINUED AB 1900 Page 3 Allowing for testimony to be recorded guaranteed that, even if the victim could not appear at trial due to an unforeseen circumstance, the jury would still be able to hear the victim's testimony and understand the impact the crime had on the victim. For example, the author of AB 249 noted that the legislation was necessary for several reasons including the reality that elderly witnesses may not outlive the length of the trial. Technology is changing at a rapid rate. California's Penal Code contains references to outdated technology that needs updating. There are several references to "videotape" in the Penal Code as it relates to the showing of recorded testimony of a victim of sexual assault. This can create a complication for the District Attorney (DA) when prosecuting certain sexual assault cases. In order to use something different than a videotape during a trial, the DA's office needs to ask the defense for a stipulation regarding this requirement. AB 1900 changes the word "videotape" in certain sections of the California Penal Code to "video-recording" to enable the DA's office to officially use modern video-recordings of testimony during trial. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 6/20/14) Alameda County District Attorney (source) California District Attorneys Association California Police Chiefs Association California State Sheriffs' Association Los Angeles District Attorney's Office SEIU California ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, CONTINUED AB 1900 Page 4 Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NO VOTE RECORDED: Gray, Harkey, Mansoor, Nazarian, Vacancy JG:nl 6/23/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED