AB 818, as introduced, Quirk. Criminal procedure: evidence.
Existing law allows an incarcerated person who has been convicted of a felony to make a written motion for the performance of forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing according to a specified procedure. Existing law allows the court to order a hearing on the motion if the court determines the convicted person has met specified requirements and that the hearing is necessary. Existing law requires the motion to be granted if certain facts have been established, including, among others, that the identity of the perpetrator of the crime was, or should have been, a significant issue in the case.
This bill would authorize a party in a criminal action to make a written motion for the comparison of DNA evidence, latent fingerprint evidence, or firearms-related evidence with information contained in relevant databases. The bill would require the party seeking the comparison to provide written notice, as specified, 30 court days prior to a hearing on the motion. The bill would require the court to grant the motion if, in the case of a DNA comparison, the source of the DNA profile is material to guilt or innocence, in the case of latent print comparison, the comparison may identify the putative perpetrator of the crime, or, in the case of firearms-related evidence comparison, the comparison may provide evidence that is material to guilt or innocence. The bill would require that the local law enforcement agency conduct the comparison and provide the results of any comparison to the court. The bill would require the court, if the results are material, to disclose the results to the parties. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies with regard to evidence comparison, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares both of
2the following:
3(1) One of the purposes of a criminal trial is the ascertainment
4of the truth of the charges against the accused person.
5Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile comparisons, latent
6fingerprint comparison, and firearms comparison evidence are
7commonly used in criminal proceedings to help identify the
8perpetrator of the crime. With these techniques, the evidence from
9a crime scene is compared with information stored in a database
10to determine whether the DNA profile or fingerprint matches a
11previously convicted person, who may then be identified as a
12suspect, or whether firearms-related evidence appears to match
13firearms-related evidence used in another crime,
thereby potentially
14identifying a suspect. The systems commonly used are known as
15the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Integrated
16Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), and the
17National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN). There
18are also local databases, including the Los Angeles Automated
19Fingerprint Identification System (LAFIS) and other databases
20that utilize an Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS).
21(2) Currently, a law enforcement agency on its own or at the
22request of the prosecuting attorney has the sole discretion to
P3 1determine if evidence recovered from a crime scene is searched
2against any of these databases. A court does not have the power
3on its own to order a search of these databases even if a search
4will lead to relevant exculpatory evidence, helping prove that the
5person accused of a crime is being wrongfully prosecuted, or
6helping identify the actual perpetrator of the crime.
7(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the act that added this
8section grant a court the authority to make a pretrial order to
9compare relevant evidence with information contained in these
10databases. It is further the intent of the Legislature that the act that
11added this section will promote fairness and justice, will prevent
12wrongful convictions, and will ensure that the guilty are prosecuted
13and the innocent exonerated.
Section 1405.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
(a) (1) A party in a criminal action may make a written
16motion for the comparison of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
17obtained from biological evidence in the case with DNA profiles
18contained in the State DNA Index System (SDIS) and, if
19appropriate, the National DNA Index System (NDIS).
20(2) This subdivision does not require a prosecuting attorney to
21file the motion described in paragraph (1) prior to comparing DNA
22obtained from biological evidence in a case with DNA profiles
23contained in SDIS or NDIS.
24(b) The party seeking the comparison shall provide written
25notice to the local law enforcement agency and opposing counsel
2630 court days prior to a hearing on the
motion.
27(c) The court shall grant the motion for DNA comparison if it
28determines that the source of the DNA profile is material to guilt
29or innocence.
30(d) (1) If the court grants the motion for DNA comparison, the
31court shall order the local law enforcement agency to conduct the
32comparison and order that the identity of any individuals whose
33DNA profile matched the DNA submitted for comparison, if
34available, and a description of DNA profiles that matched the DNA
35submitted for comparison, if no identity is associated with the
36matching DNA profile, be provided to the court.
37(2) The court shall review any results submitted pursuant to
38paragraph (1) and determine if the results are material. Upon a
39finding of materiality, the court shall disclose the results to the
40
parties.
Section 1405.3 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
(a) (1) A party in a criminal action may make a written
3motion for the comparison of latent print evidence in the case with
4fingerprints contained in the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
5Identification System (IAFIS) and in local fingerprint databases,
6including, but not limited to, the Los Angeles Automated
7Fingerprint Identification Systems (LAFIS).
8(2) This subdivision does not require a prosecuting attorney to
9file the motion described in paragraph (1) prior to comparing latent
10print evidence in a case with fingerprints contained in IAFIS or
11local fingerprint databases.
12(b) The party seeking the comparison shall provide written
13notice to the local law
enforcement agency and opposing counsel
1430 court days prior to a hearing on the motion.
15(c) The court shall grant the motion for latent print comparison
16if it determines that the comparison may identify the putative
17perpetrator of the crime.
18(d) (1) If the court grants the motion for latent print comparison,
19the court shall order the local law enforcement agency to conduct
20the comparison and order that the identity of any individuals whose
21fingerprints match the latent prints submitted for comparison be
22provided to the court.
23(2) The court shall review any results submitted pursuant to
24paragraph (1) and determine if the results are material. Upon a
25finding of materiality, the court shall disclose the results to the
26parties.
Section 1405.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
(a) (1) A party in a criminal action may make a written
29motion for the comparison of firearms-related evidence, including,
30but not limited to, cartridge casings, bullets, or firearms, in the
31case with firearms-related data contained in an Integrated Ballistics
32Identification System (IBIS), the National Integrated Ballistic
33Information Network (NIBIN), or both.
34(2) This subdivision does not require a prosecuting attorney to
35file the motion described in paragraph (1) prior to comparing
36firearms-related evidence in a case with firearms-related data
37contained in an IBIS or the NIBIN.
38(b) The party seeking the comparison shall provide written
39notice to the local
law enforcement agency and opposing counsel
4030 court days prior to a hearing on the motion.
P5 1(c) The court shall grant the motion for firearms-related evidence
2comparison if it determines that the comparison may provide
3evidence that is material to guilt or innocence.
4(d) (1) If the court grants the motion for firearms-related
5evidence comparison, the court shall order the local law
6enforcement agency to conduct the comparison and order that the
7identity of any individual associated with firearms-related data
8that matched the firearms-related evidence submitted for
9comparison be provided to the court.
10(2) The court shall review any results submitted pursuant to
11paragraph (1) and determine if the results are material. Upon a
12finding of materiality, the court shall disclose the results to the
13
parties.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
15this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
16local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
17pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
184 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
99