BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 835 Hearing Date: June 23, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Gipson |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 14, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Vehicular Manslaughter: Statute of Limitation
HISTORY
Source: Crime Victims United
Prior Legislation:AB 184 (Gatto), Chapter 765, Statutes of 2013
SB 387 (LaMalfa) held SCoPS ROCA 2012
AB 2484 (Davis) not heard SCoPS ROCA 2012
Support: The California Association of Highway Patrolman;
California District Attorneys Association; California
Police Chiefs Association, Inc.; Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Association
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union; California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice; Legal Services for Prisoners
with Children
Assembly Floor Vote: 75 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow for a longer statute of
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageB
of?
limitations when a person flees the scene of an accident where
vehicular manslaughter has occurred.
Existing law states that vehicular manslaughter is the unlawful
killing of a human being without malice while driving a vehicle
in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony,
and with gross negligence or driving a vehicle in the commission
of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful
manner, and with gross negligence. (Penal Code, § 192 (c)(1).)
Existing law states that violation of vehicular manslaughter is
punishable by either imprisonment in the county jail for not
more than one year or by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, four or six years. (Penal Code, § 193 (c)(1).)
Existing law states that vehicular manslaughter also is the
unlawful killing of a human being without malice while (i)
driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence or (ii)
driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross
negligence. States that violation of this offense is punishable
by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year.
(Penal Code §§ 192(c)(2) and 193 (c) (2).)
Existing law requires that prosecution for an offense punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail pursuant to
realignment be commenced within three years after commission of
the offense, except as specified. (Penal Code, § 801.)
Existing law states that the driver of a vehicle involved in an
accident resulting in injury to a person, other than himself or
herself, or in the death of a person shall immediately stop the
vehicle at the scene of the accident and provide assistance and
information. (Vehicle Code, § 20001 (a).)
Existing law specifies that if the results is death or
permanent, serious injury, a person who violates subdivision
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two,
three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less than 90
days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one
thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars
($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. However, the
court, in the interests of justice and for reasons stated in the
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageC
of?
record, may reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment.
(Vehicle Code, § 20001 (b)(2).)
Existing law states that a person who flees the scene of the
crime after committing a violation of vehicular manslaughter
while intoxicated of, or gross vehicular manslaughter upon
conviction of any of those sections, in addition and consecutive
to the punishment prescribed, shall be punished by an additional
term of imprisonment of five years in the state prison. This
additional term shall not be imposed unless the allegation is
charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted by the defendant
or found to be true by the trier of fact. The court shall not
strike a finding that brings a person within the provisions of
this subdivision or an allegation made pursuant to this
subdivision. (Vehicle Code, § 20001 (c).)
Existing law requires that prosecution for a misdemeanor offense
be commenced within one year after commission of the offense,
except as specified. (Penal Code, § 802 (a).)
Existing law allows a criminal complaint to be filed within the
standard period, or one year after the person is initially
identified by law enforcement as a suspect in the commission of
the offense, whichever is later, but in no case later than six
years after the commission of the offense, if a person flees the
scene of an accident that caused death or permanent, serious
injury. (Penal Code, § 803 (j).)
This bill provides that notwithstanding any other limitation of
time, if a person flees the scene of an accident where the
person is charged with vehicular manslaughter, the statute of
limitation is one year after the person is initially identified
by law enforcement as a suspect in the offense or the existing
statute of limitations, whichever is later.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageD
of?
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
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.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageE
of?
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Assembly Bill 835 will ensure those who commit vehicular
homicide and flee the scene of a fatality are held
accountable for their crime. By tolling - or suspending -
the statute of limitations so it does not begin to expire
until a suspect is identified, AB 835 would give law
enforcement a one year period to file charges against those
who commit this crime. In LA County alone, there is an
average of 6,000 hit and run accidents that result in death
or injury every year. We need to give law enforcement the
tools to prosecute these cases, and provide justice for the
families shattered by these crimes."
2.The Statute of Limitations Generally; Law Revision Commission
Report
The statute of limitations requires commencement of a
prosecution within a certain period of time after the commission
of a crime. A prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment
or information, filing a complaint, certifying a case to
superior court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant. (Penal
Code § 804.) The failure of a prosecution to be commenced
within the applicable period of limitation is a complete defense
to the charge. The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and
may be raised as a defense at any time, before or after
judgment. People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13. The defense
may only be waived under limited circumstances. (See Cowan v.
Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.)
The Legislature enacted the current statutory scheme regarding
statutes of limitations for crimes in 1984 in response to a
report of the California Law Revision Commission:
The Commission identified various factors to be
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageF
of?
considered in drafting a limitations statute. These
factors include: (a) The staleness factor. A person
accused of crime should be protected from having to face
charges based on possibly unreliable evidence and from
losing access to the evidentiary means to defend. (b)
The repose factor. This reflects society's lack of a
desire to prosecute for crimes committed in the distant
past. (c) The motivation factor. This aspect of the
statute imposes a priority among crimes for
investigation and prosecution. (d) The seriousness
factor. The statute of limitations is a grant of
amnesty to a defendant; the more serious the crime, the
less willing society is to grant that amnesty. (e) The
concealment factor. Detection of certain concealed
crimes may be quite difficult and may require long
investigations to identify and prosecute the
perpetrators.
The Commission concluded that a felony limitations
statute generally should be based on the seriousness of
the crime. Seriousness is easily determined based on
classification of a crime as felony or misdemeanor and
the punishment specified, and a scheme based on
seriousness generally will accommodate the other factors
as well. Also, the simplicity of a limitations period
based on seriousness provides predictability and
promotes uniformity of treatment.<1>
3. Existing Statute of Limitations for Fleeing a Scene
AB 184 (Gatto) in 2013 extended the statute of limitations when
a person flees the scene of an accident and causes death or
permanent serious injury. The law now allows a case to be filed
within the applicable time period or one year after the person
was initially identified by law enforcement, but in no case
later than six years. The six year limitation was put in AB 184
(Gatto) to strike a balance between not letting a case get
stale, encouraging law enforcement to continue to pursue leads
and the difficulty a person facing in defending a years old
case.
---------------------------
<1> 1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses, Section 214 (3rd Ed.
2004), citing 17 Cal. Law Rev. Com. Reports, pp.308-314.
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageG
of?
4. Expanding Statute of Limitations for Vehicular Manslaughter
This bill would allow for an extension of the statute of
limitations for vehicular manslaughter when a person flees the
scene. The existing statute of limitations is 3 years for a
felony and one year for a misdemeanor. This bill would provide
that the statute of limitations would be one year after the
person is initially identified by law enforcement as a suspect
or the existing statute of limitations, whichever is later.
5. Support
In support the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office states:
AB 835 provides that, in addition to filing a criminal
complaint within the existing statute of limitations,
if a person flees the scene of an accident that
results in a vehicular manslaughter a criminal
complaint may be filed within one year after the
person is initially identified by law enforcement as a
suspect in the commission of the offense, whichever is
later.
Although these cases are rare, when they do occur, it
is a terrible injustice. AB 835 will give law
enforcement one year after the subject is identified
to arrest and charge that individual. Unfortunately,
current law gives hit and run drivers and incentive to
evade law enforcement in cases where they have caused
the death of the victim. The defendant should not be
permitted the benefit of the current statute of
limitations since it is the defendant's own action in
fleeing from the scene of the accident and then
evading law enforcement that caused the statute of
limitations to expire.
Under current law, there are similar statutes for
other offenses where the identity of the perpetrator
may not be learned within the regular statute of
limitation. For example, in fraud cases, the statute
of limitation does not begin to run until the
discovery of the offense, even if the crime was
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageH
of?
committed years before it was discovered. Similarly,
in sex crime cases involving minors, a criminal case
may be filed within one year after it is reported to
law enforcement after the minor turns 18, regardless
of when the crime was committed. Similar states of
limitation exist for welfare fraud, bribery of a
public official and certain environmental crimes.
Victims killed in cases involving vehicular
manslaughter should be entitled to the same
protection.
6. Opposition
The ACLU opposes this bill unless the six-year limit that was
put in for the statute of limitations where a person flees the
scene of an accident is added to this bill. Specifically they
state:
AB 835 would effectively eliminate the statute of
limitations for charges under Penal Code section
192(c)(1) or (2) in cases where a person flees the
scene of an accident. The bill would permit the
prosecution to pursue charges within one year of
identifying a suspect, without any outer-limit on when
charges may be filed. Practically speaking, this is
effectively the same as no statute of limitations, as
the prosecution may pursue charges decades after the
events at issue. In contrast, Penal Code section
803(j) currently provides that, in cases where a
person flees the scene of an accident causing death,
the prosecution may file charges within one year of
identifying a suspect "but in no case later than six
years after the commission of the offense."
Creating two different statutes of limitations for
these offenses will create confusion. A prosecutor may
choose to charge the more severe offense of Penal Code
section 192(c) for the specific purpose of evading the
six year statute of limitations provided for the
offense of fleeing the scene of an accident causing
death. People charged with this more severe crime more
than six years after the events may raise legitimate
due process and equal protection concerns.
AB 835 (Gipson ) PageI
of?
Moreover, statutes of limitations promote one of the
core principles of our justice system: that crimes are
solved and brought to trial quickly, to ensure that a
person accused of a crime faces reliable evidence and
has a fair opportunity to mount a defense. The United
States Supreme Court stated that statutes of
limitations are the primary guarantee against bringing
overly stale criminal charges. (United States v. Ewell
(1966) 383 U.S. 116, 122.) People should not face
criminal charges based on evidence that may be
unreliable or after they have lost access to evidence
to defend against the charge. With time memory fades,
witnesses become unavailable, and physical evidence
becomes unobtainable or contaminated.
Offenses that charged under Penal Code section 192(c)
are particularly likely to raise these concerns. These
offenses do not require intent but, rather, a finding
of gross negligence. Determining whether the accused
person committed an act with gross negligence requires
a careful assessment of all of the circumstances of
the accident and many of the circumstances leading up
to the accident. A person facing charges of gross
vehicular manslaughter decades after the event will
have lost the ability to identify and interview key
witnesses and to collect physical evidence that may be
relevant to his or her defense.
For these reasons, we oppose AB 835 unless amended to
provide an outer-limit of six years for filing these
charges.
-- END -