BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
3
7
8
SB 378 (Block)
As Amended April 2, 2013
Hearing date: April 9, 2013
Evidence Code
MK:dl
EVIDENCE: ADMISSIBILITY:
ELECTRONIC DIGITIZED DOCUMENTS
HISTORY
Source: San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California District Attorneys Association
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD ELECTRONICALLY DIGITIZED DOCUMENTS BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER
EVIDENCE CODE PROVISIONS MAKING SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS OR RECORDS
ADMISSIBLE?
PURPOSE
(More)
378 (Block)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the use of
electronically digitized documents as evidence in situations
where documents or records can be admitted.
Existing law in the "Electronic Discovery Act" establishes
procedures for parties to discover electronically stored
information from opposing parties for use as evidence in state
court actions. (Code of Civil Procedure �� 2031.010 et seq.)
Existing law provides that judicial notice may be taken of the
specified matters including official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the United States and any
state of the United States and records of any court of this
state, any other state or the United States. (Evidence Code �
452 (c), (d).)
Existing law provides that the official acts and records in (c)
and (d) of Section 452 include any computer generated official
court records which relate to criminal convictions, when the
record is certified by a clerk of the superior court pursuant to
the Government Code at the time of computer entry. (Penal Code
� 452.5(a).)
This bill provides that "electronically digitized copy" means a
copy that is made by scanning, photographing, or otherwise
exactly reproducing a document, is stored or maintained in a
digitized format, and bears an electronic signature or watermark
unique to the entity responsible for certifying the document.
Existing law provides that an official certified record of
conviction is admissible to prove the commission, attempted
commission, or solicitation of a criminal offense, prior
conviction, service of a prison term, or other act, condition,
or event recorded by the record. (Evidence Code � 452.5 (b).)
This bill adds that an electronically digitized copy of the
(More)
378 (Block)
Page 3
record is also admissible.
.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order to reduce the state's prison population to
137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted in part
that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons has been
reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public
safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates
compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000
inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs, who oppose the state's
(More)
378 (Block)
Page 4
motion, argue in part that, "California prisons, which currently
average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity
at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient."
In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted
the state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % prisoner
population cap by December 31st of this year.
(More)
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unsettled. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error; whether a measure proposes
penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved
through any other reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENT
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Prosecutors need court-certified copies of prior
convictions in many cases, both to verify that charges
are to be brought, and then to prove those charges at
trial. These court-certified copies are taking longer
to receive, despite the statutorily mandated time for
bringing charged defendants to hearing. Court staff
budget cuts make the processing of these requests
onerous and time-consuming, as well as expensive.
SB 378 will authorize the use of electronically
digitized copies of prior convictions as admissible
evidence to the same extent as the original record or a
certified copy. This bill will result in cost savings
and will decrease the processing time due to the
(More)
378 (Block)
Page 6
increased efficiency and speed with which items can be
digitally scanned and emailed.
2. Admissibility of Documents and Records
The Evidence Code generally governs the admissibility of
evidence in civil and criminal proceedings including the
admissibility of documents and records. The hearsay rule states
that "evidence of a statement that was made other than by a
witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to
prove the truth of the matter stated" is inadmissible except as
otherwise provided by law. (Evidence Code � 1200.) The
Evidence Code creates a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule
for documents and records that are produced by a public entity.
The idea is that these documents are trustworthy:
A long-established hearsay exception makes admissible
the statement of a public official, provided the
official was under a duty to make it and it was based on
facts within the official's personal knowledge. The
regular practice of the public office and the official
duty make the statement trustworthy, and public
functions could not be conveniently performed if
officers and deputies were constantly called as
witnesses to testify to the matters covered by official
statements. (See 2 McCormick 6th, � 295; 5 Wigmore
(Chadbourn Rev.) � 1630 et seq.; 80 A.L.R.3d 414
[admissibility of public record in absence of express
statutory authorization]; 29A Am.Jur.2d (2008 ed.);
(Evidence � 1296.) (1 Witkin Cal. Evid. Hearsay � 245.)
3. Electronically Digitized Versions of Documents
This bill would make electronically digitized copies of an
official record of a criminal conviction admissible. The
definition for electronically digitized copy requires that it
bear an electronic signature or watermark unique to the entity
responsible for certifying the document. According to the
sponsor, it has been taking longer to obtain court certified
378 (Block)
Page 7
copies of prior convictions which can cause problems with the
speedy trial timelines in a criminal case. This bill would
allow them to use electronically digitized versions of the
documents.
***************