BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|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 Le�n, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 5/20/13
AYES: De Le�n, 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