BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
9
3
9
SB 939 (Block)
As Amended April 2, 2014
Hearing date: April 8, 2014
Penal Code
MK:mc
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HISTORY
Source: San Diego County District Attorney; Riverside County
District Attorney; Alameda County District Attorney;
Orange County District Attorney
Prior Legislation: AB 1278 (Lieber) - Ch. 258, Stats. 2008
AB 2252 (Cohn) - Ch. 194, Stats. 2002
AB 2734 (Pacheco) - Ch. 302, Stats. 1998
Support: Concerned Women for America; California Police Chiefs
Association; North County Human Trafficking Task Force;
Crime Victims United of California; Crittenton Services
for Children & Families; California State Sheriffs'
Association (in Concept); Junior League of San Diego;
California District Attorneys Association; San
Bernardino County Sheriff
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD CASES INVOLVING HUMAN TRAFFICKING, PIMPING AND PANDERING THAT
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageB
OCCUR IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS TO BE JOINED IN A SINGLE
JURISDICTION IF ALL THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AGREE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow cases involving human
trafficking, pimping and pandering that occur in different
jurisdictions to be joined in a single jurisdiction if all the
district attorneys agree.
Existing law provides that any person who deprives or violates
the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced
labor or services or with the intent to effect or maintain a
specified sex offense violation or any person who causes,
induces or persuades or attempts to cause, induce or persuade a
person who is a minor at the time of the offense to engage in a
commercial sex act is guilty of human trafficking, a felony.
(Penal Code § 236.1.)
Existing law provides that pimping is a felony. (Penal Code §
266h.)
Existing law provides that pandering is a felony. (Penal Code §
266i.)
Existing law provides that if one or more violations of
specified sex offenses occur in more than one jurisdictional
territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for
any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any
jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all
the district attorneys agree to the venue. (Penal Code §
784.7.)
Existing law provides that if specified domestic violence
offenses occurred in more than one jurisdiction and the
defendant is the same for all the offenses, the jurisdiction of
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageC
any of the offenses and for any offenses properly joinable with
that offense is the jurisdiction where at least one of the
offenses occurred. (Penal Code § 794.7.)
Existing law provides when charges alleging multiple violations
of human trafficking that involve the same victim or victims in
multiple territorial jurisdictions are filed in one county, the
courts shall hold a hearing to consider whether the matter
should proceed in the county of filing or whether one or more
counts should be severed. The district attorney in each count
shall agree that the matter should proceed in the county of
filing. The court shall consider the location and complexity of
the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses
occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people and the
convenience to the victim or victims in deciding whether to hear
all the complaints in one county. (Penal Code § 784.8.)
This bill deletes existing language in Penal Code Section 784.8
and provides instead that if one or more violation of human
trafficking, pimping or pandering occurs in more than one
jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those
offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable to that
offense, is any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses
occurred if all the district attorneys agree to the venue.
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
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageD
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 that 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.
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 requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted 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 opposed the
state's motion, arguing 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 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageE
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageF
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.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Current law (Penal Code section 784.7(a)) states that
when more than one violation of sexual assault, rape,
child molestation, or similar charges occur in multiple
jurisdictions, all of the charges may be prosecuted in
one jurisdiction where one of the crimes occurred. In
order to consolidate, the law stipulates that there
must be a written agreement to the venue from each
district attorney and that the charges are properly
joinable. The request for consolidation requires the
district attorneys to submit written evidence before a
judge under a Penal Code Section 954 hearing.
SB 939 mirrors PC Section 784.7(a) and creates a
consolidated trial process mechanism for human
trafficking, pimping, pandering, and properly joinable
charges. Currently, these crimes must be prosecuted in
each jurisdiction where the crime occurred. This often
results in excessive trauma and travel for victims,
unnecessary costs to our court system, and complicated
prosecution of human trafficking related crimes.
Human trafficking, pimping, and pandering are not
limited to one jurisdiction. By the crimes' very
nature, the victims can be exploited wherever there is
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageG
demand. Additionally, perpetrators frequently move
across jurisdictional lines to avoid apprehension. SB
939 allows the prosecution of human trafficking and its
related offenses to capture the transitory nature of
these heinous crimes. Most importantly, SB 939 helps
victims by not subjecting them to multiple trials.
Currently, the same victim would be either a primary
witness or a supporting witness in each trial to show
the same mode of operation, criminal intent, or other
relevant evidence. SB 939 would minimize the trauma of
testifying in multiple court proceedings. Finally,
consolidating these charges into a single trial is cost
effective for our courts and law enforcement.
2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction is the basic power of a court to
hear a case. Under Article VI, Section 10, of the California
Constitution, the superior court has "original jurisdiction in
all causes except those given by statute to other trial
courts." Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot
be waived or conferred by the parties. Thus, a judgment
entered in a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void.
(Griggs v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 341, 344; 4 Witkin,
Cal. Crim. Law, (3d Ed. 2000) Jurisdiction and Venue, § 1, p.
86.) Superior courts have jurisdiction over felony criminal
matters. (Pen. Code § 681.) Thus, any superior court in the
state has subject matter jurisdiction over a case charged as a
felony.
3. Venue and Vicinage
The California Supreme Court in People v. Price (2001) 25
Cal.4th 1046, 1054-1056<1> explained the concepts of venue
(territorial jurisdiction) and vicinage (area from which jury
---------------------------
<1> In Price, the defendant was charged with various counts of
murder, child abuse and child endangerment in Santa Clara County
and Riverside County. The victims in both counties were the
same. The cases were consolidated and heard in Riverside
County. (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1046.)
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageH
pool is chosen) as applied to criminal prosecutions:
[V]enue and vicinage are logically distinct concepts.
Venue refers to the location where the trial is held,
whereas vicinage refers to the area from which the
jury pool is drawn. It is possible in theory to
change one but not the other.
The concepts of venue and vicinage are closely
related, as a jury pool ordinarily is selected from
the area in which the trial is to be held. The
concepts have different origins and purposes, however.
Venue is historically significant from a national
perspective because, as discussed below, the
pre-Revolutionary practice of transporting colonists
who were charged with crimes in the colonies to either
England or other English colonies for trial was among
the principal complaints of the colonists against
England. Objections to that practice led to the
inclusion of Article III, Section 2 in the United
States Constitution. That provision limits the place
of trial in federal criminal proceedings to the state
in which the crime was committed. Most California
venue statutes serve a similar purpose in reducing the
potential burden on a defendant who might otherwise be
required to stand trial in a distant location that is
not reasonably related to the alleged criminal
conduct.
. . . [T]he general rule of territorial jurisdiction
over felonies is that stated in
section 777: "except as otherwise provided by law the
jurisdiction of every public offense is in any
competent court within the jurisdictional territory of
which it is committed." Ordinarily the jurisdictional
territory of a superior court is the county in which it
sits. (§ 691, subd. (b).) Venue or territorial
jurisdiction establishes the proper place for trial,
but is not an aspect of the fundamental subject matter
jurisdiction of the court and does not affect the power
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageI
of a court to try a case .
When the Legislature creates an exception to the rule
of section 777, the venue statute is remedial and for
that reason is construed liberally to achieve the
legislative purpose of expanding criminal
jurisdiction. Section 784.7 is such an exception and
the legislative purpose is clear. (Internal citations
omitted; emphasis added.)
The court explained the following as to the right of vicinage in
modern practice:
Because a vicinage guarantee does not serve the
purpose of protecting a criminal defendant from
government oppression and is not necessary to ensure a
fair trial, it is not a necessary feature of the right
to jury trial. For that reason we conclude that the
vicinage clause of the Sixth Amendment is not
applicable to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment. (Id, at 1065.)
The court in Price further explained that the right of vicinage
in California is derived from the right to a jury trial
guaranteed in the California Constitution and is effectively
limited to a requirement that there be a reasonable nexus
between the crime and the county of trial. (Price, supra, at
1071-1074.) The right to an impartial jury is a more important
consideration than the place from which a jury is chosen.
Today, defendants often argue that jurors should know nothing
about a case in order to eliminate prejudice about the
defendant's guilt. (Id, at 1059-1060, 1064-1065.)
The court in Price found that the right to jury trial in
California does include a vicinage right of some kind that
limited the state's ability to determine the place of trial.
However, that right is limited to requiring a nexus between the
place of trial and the crime alleged:
The right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage, as
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageJ
guaranteed by the California Constitution, is not
violated by trial in county having a reasonable
relationship to the offense or to other crimes
committed by the defendant against the same victim.
We do not hold here that a crime may be tried
anywhere. The Legislature's power to designate the
place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by
the requirement that there be a reasonable
relationship or nexus between the place designated
for trial and the commission of the offense.
Repeated abuse of the same child or spouse in more
than one county creates that nexus. The venue
authorized by Penal Code section 784.7 is not
arbitrary. It is reasonable for the Legislature to
conclude that this pattern of conduct is akin to a
continuing offense and to conclude that the victim
and other witnesses should not be burdened with
having to testify in multiple trials in different
counties. (Id, at 1074, emphasis added.)
(More)
4. Joining Human Trafficking Cases in a Single Venue
The proper venue for the trial of a crime is any competent court
within the territorial jurisdiction in which the crime was
committed. If a single crime is committed in more than one
county, then proper venue is in either county. (4 Witkin, Cal.
Crime Law (3rd Ed. 2000) Jurisdiction and Venue, § 51, pp.
141-142.)
Existing law allows specified sex offenses occurring in
different jurisdictions to be joined and heard in one
jurisdiction where at least one offense occurred if all the
district attorneys agree. (Penal Code § 784.7 (a).) Existing
law also allows domestic violence cases that occur in different
jurisdictions when the victim and the defendant is the same in
each case. (Penal Code
§ 784.8 (b).) The court must hold a hearing in order to join
the multiple offenses in a single accusatory pleading and the
court may exercise discretion to deny joinder "in the interest
of justice and for good cause shown." (People v. Huy Ngoc
Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal App 4th 1096.)
Existing law also provides that when charges alleging multiple
violations of human trafficking that involve the same victim or
victims are filed in once county, the judge shall hold a hearing
to consider whether the matter should proceed in the county of
filing or whether one or more counts should be severed. The
district attorney shall present evidence to the court that
district attorneys in each county agree that the matter should
proceed in the selected county. (Penal Code
§ 784.8.)
The sponsor of SB 939 (Block) argues that as currently drafted
Penal Code Section 784.8 does not work. They provide instead:
If more than one violation of Section 236.1, 266h, or
266i occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory,
the jurisdiction of any of the those offenses, and for
any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in
(More)
SB 939 (Block)
PageL
any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses
occurred, subject to a hearing pursuant to Section 954,
within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial. At the
Section 954 hearing, the prosecution shall present
evidence in writing that all district attorneys in
counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the
venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there
is no written agreement from the district attorney
shall be returned to that jurisdiction.
The sponsor believes that this will be a workable statute for
joining cases that the current version is not.
5. Pimping and Pandering
The intent of this bill is to allow human trafficking cases that
occur in more than one jurisdiction to be joined but the bill
also allows pimping and pandering cases to be joined. As
drafted, these could be pimping and pandering cases that are
unrelated to human trafficking. Do pimping and pandering cases
that are unrelated to human trafficking rise to the level that a
defendants venue and vicinage rights may be infringed?
6. Consideration of Locale of Victims
Existing law provides that when joining human trafficking cases
the court shall consider "where the majority of the offenses
occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the
convenience of, or hardship to the victim of victims and
witnesses." This bill removes that explicit consideration.
Should the convenience of or hardship of victims and witnesses
be considered in these cases?
***************
SB 939 (Block)
PageM