BILL NUMBER: SB 327	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Senator Yee

                        FEBRUARY 19, 2013

   An act to amend Section 1473.5 of the Penal Code, relating to
human trafficking.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   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 1.  Section 1473.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   1473.5.  (a) A writ of habeas corpus also may be prosecuted on the
basis that  (1)  competent and substantial expert testimony
relating to intimate partner battering and its effects, within the
meaning of Section 1107 of the Evidence Code,  or (2) competent
and substantial expert testimony relating to human trafficking, as
described in Section 236.1, 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. Sections
1260 to 1262, inclusive, apply to the prosecution of a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to this section. As used in this section, "trial
court proceedings" means those court proceedings that occur from the
time the accusatory pleading is filed until and including judgment
and sentence.
   (b) This section is limited to  (1)  violent felonies as
specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 that were committed
before August 29, 1996, and that resulted in judgments of conviction
or sentence after a plea or trial as to which expert testimony
admissible pursuant to Section 1107 of the Evidence Code may be
probative on the issue of culpability  ,   or (2) cases
in which the defendant is a victim of human trafficking, as described
  in Section 236.1  .
   (c) A showing that expert testimony relating to intimate partner
battering and its effects  or   human trafficking and
its effects  was presented to the trier of fact is not a bar to
granting a petition under this section if that expert testimony was
not competent or substantial. The burden of proof is on the
petitioner to establish a sufficient showing that competent and
substantial expert testimony, of a nature which would be competent
using prevailing understanding of intimate partner battering and its
effects,  or human trafficking and its effects,  was not
presented to the trier of fact, and had that evidence been presented,
there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings
would have been different.
   (d) If a petitioner for habeas corpus under this section has
previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it is grounds
for denial of the new petition if a court determined on the merits in
the prior petition that the omission of expert testimony  at
trial  relating to battered women's syndrome or intimate partner
battering and its effects  at trial   or 
 human trafficking   and its effects  was not
prejudicial and did not entitle the petitioner to the writ of habeas
corpus.
   (e) For purposes of this section, the changes that become
effective on January 1, 2005, are not intended to expand the uses or
applicability of expert testimony on battering and its effects that
were in effect immediately prior to that date in criminal cases.