BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 295| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 295 Author: Emmerson (R) Amended: 5/24/13 Vote: 27 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/30/13 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Block, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 5/20/13 AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Padilla, Steinberg NO VOTE RECORDED: Lara SUBJECT : Sexually violent predators: civil commitment SOURCE : Riverside County District Attorney San Bernardino County District Attorney San Joaquin County District Attorney DIGEST : This bill clarifies the process and procedural guidelines to be used by the courts for sexually violent predator petitions, whether with or without Department of State Hospitals (DSH) concurrence, for conditional and unconditional release. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1.Provides for the civil commitment of criminal offenders who CONTINUED SB 295 Page 2 have been determined to be sexually violent predators for treatment in a secure state hospital facility, as specified. 2.Requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (secretary) to refer a prisoner for evaluation by DSH when the secretary determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator (SVP) and specifies the judicial processes necessary for civil commitment as an SVP, including, but not limited to, the right to a jury trial. 3.Establishes provisions by which a committed person may petition for conditional release or unconditional discharge. This bill: 1.Provides that upon the DSH annual report on the mental status of an SVP patient finding that the conditional discharge would be in the best interests of the patient under conditions that would protect the public, the patient may only file a petition as follows: A. The state shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the SVP would be likely to commit sexually violent offenses if conditionally released. B. If the petition for conditional release is denied by the court, the SVP may not file another petition for conditional release for one year. 1.Provides that where an SVP patient files a petition for conditional release without the concurrence or recommendation of the director of the treatment facility, the court may not act on the petition until the court obtains the written recommendation of the director. 2.Provides that where a show cause hearing is held to consider a DSH determination that an SVP patient is no longer an SVP, the patient SVP has the burden to establish probable cause that he/she would not likely commit sexually violent offenses if unconditionally released. 3.Provides that after at least one year on conditional release, the SVP patient may file a petition for unconditional release. If the court finds probable cause to support the petition, CONTINUED SB 295 Page 3 the state shall bear the burden to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is still an SVP. Background Civil Commitment Generally . The United States and California Supreme Courts, have consistently held that involuntary confinement for mental health treatment is a severe curtailment of liberty. Civil commitment schemes must be justified by compelling state interests. (Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) 504 U.S. 71, 77; People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1193.) Proposition 83 in 2006 - Indeterminate Commitment of SVPs instead of Two-Year Commitment . In 2006, Proposition 83 (Jessica's Law) provided that a person found to be an SVP in a jury trial was to be civilly committed to the DSH for an indefinite period of time. Prior to enactment of Proposition 83, the SVP was entitled to a full jury trial every two years at which the prosecution had to prove again the person's status as an SVP. The indefinite commitment provision in Proposition 83 has been challenged in the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, annual costs of $38,000 (General Fund) for the DSH to submit additional recommendations to the court. SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/13) Riverside County District Attorney (co-source) San Bernardino County District Attorney (co-source) San Joaquin County District Attorney (co-source) ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Riverside County District Attorney writes: CONTINUED SB 295 Page 4 These statutes attempt to describe the procedures whereby an SVP can seek conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or an unconditional discharge. Unfortunately, these statutes are confusing, poorly drafted, and incomplete. Under the current statutory language, it is difficult to determine the procedures that should be used when an SVP seeks release. The changes suggested by this bill will clarify how an SVP seeks conditional and unconditional release and the procedures that should be followed by the courts in considering these requests. JG:ne 5/24/13 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED