SB 327, as introduced, Yee. Human trafficking: recall and resentencing.
Existing law authorizes every person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his or her liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of that imprisonment or restraint.
Existing law provides that a writ of habeas corpus based on intimate partner battering may be prosecuted if competent and substantial expert testimony relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was not presented to the trier of fact at the trial court proceedings, and is of such substance that, had it been presented, there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of conviction or sentence, the result of the proceedings would have been different, and that the burden of proof in this regard is on the petitioner.
This bill would make those provisions applicable to cases in which competent and substantial expert testimony relating to human trafficking, as defined, and its effects was not presented to the trier of fact at the trial court proceedings and is of such substance that, had the competent and substantial expert testimony been presented, there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of conviction or sentence, that the result of the proceedings would have been different.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1473.5 of the Penal Code is amended to
2read:
(a) A writ of habeas corpus also may be prosecuted
4on the basis thatbegin insert (1)end insert competent and substantial expert testimony
5relating to intimate partner battering and its effects, within the
6meaning of Section 1107 of the Evidence Code,begin insert or (2) competent
7and substantial expert testimony relating to human trafficking, as
8described in Section 236.1, and its effectsend insert was not presented to the
9trier of fact at the trial court proceedings and is of such substance
10that, had the competent and substantial expert testimony been
11presented, there is a
reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine
12confidence in the judgment of conviction or sentence, that the
13result of the proceedings would have been different. Sections 1260
14to 1262, inclusive, apply to the prosecution of a writ of habeas
15corpus pursuant to this section. As used in this section, “trial court
16proceedings” means those court proceedings that occur from the
17time the accusatory pleading is filed until and including judgment
18and sentence.
19(b) This section is limited tobegin insert (1)end insert violent felonies as specified in
20subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 that were committed before August
2129, 1996, and that resulted in judgments of conviction or sentence
22after a plea or trial as to which expert testimony admissible
23pursuant to Section 1107 of the Evidence Code may be probative
24on the issue of culpabilitybegin insert,
or (2) cases in which the defendant is
25a victim of human trafficking, as describedend insertbegin insert in Section 236.1end insert.
26(c) A showing that expert testimony relating to intimate partner
27battering and its effectsbegin insert or end insertbegin inserthuman trafficking and its effectsend insert was
28presented to the trier of fact is not a bar to granting a petition under
29this section if that expert testimony was not competent or
30substantial. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish a
31sufficient showing that competent and substantial expert testimony,
32of a nature which would be competent using prevailing
33understanding of intimate partner battering and its
effects,begin insert or
34human trafficking and its effects,end insert was not presented to the trier of
35fact, and had that evidence been presented, there is a reasonable
36probability that the result of the proceedings would have been
37different.
P3 1(d) If a petitioner for habeas corpus under this section has
2previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it is grounds
3for denial of the new petition if a court determined on the merits
4in the prior petition that the omission of expert testimonybegin insert at trialend insert
5 relating to battered women’s syndrome or intimate partner battering
6and its effectsbegin delete at trialend deletebegin insert
orend insertbegin insert human traffickingend insertbegin insert and its effectsend insert was not
7prejudicial and did not entitle the petitioner to the writ of habeas
8corpus.
9(e) For purposes of this section, the changes that become
10effective on January 1, 2005, are not intended to expand the uses
11or applicability of expert testimony on battering and its effects that
12were in effect immediately prior to that date in criminal cases.
O
99