BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 835 (Gipson) - Vehicular manslaughter: statute of limitation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 14, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: July 6, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 835 would revise the statute of limitations for the
crime of vehicular manslaughter if the person flees the scene of
an accident to one year after the person is initially identified
by law enforcement as a suspect, or within the existing statute
of limitations, whichever is later.
Fiscal
Impact:
Potential future increase in state costs, potentially in
excess of $50,000 (General Fund) in any one year to the extent
additional commitments to state prison occur under the
extended statute of limitations that otherwise would not have
occurred under existing law. While the number of new
commitments to state prison is estimated to be minimal, given
the potential length of the applicable prison term including
the five-year sentence enhancement under VC § 20001(c), even
two commitments within a seven to 11-year time period could
result in annual prison costs in excess of the Suspense File
AB 835 (Gipson) Page 1 of
?
threshold.
Potential future increase in non-reimbursable local costs
(General Fund*) to the extent additional misdemeanor
convictions to jail occur under the extended statute of
limitations that otherwise would not have occurred under
existing law. Any increased costs to local agencies could
potentially require a subvention of funds from the State
(General Fund*).
*Proposition 30 (2012) provides that legislation enacted after
September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the
costs already borne by a local agency for public safety
services, as defined, are not subject to mandate reimbursement,
however, apply to local agencies only to the extent the State
provides annual funding for the cost increase. Legislation
creating a new crime or changing the definition of an existing
crime is exempt from this funding provision, however,
legislation changing the penalty for a crime is not similarly
exempted. To the extent it is determined that the provisions of
this bill change the penalty for the crime of vehicular
manslaughter by extending the period within which violations can
be prosecuted, any increase in costs to local agencies
attributable to provisions of this legislation could potentially
require annual funding from the State.
Background: Existing law provides that vehicular manslaughter is
punishable by either imprisonment in the county jail for not
more than one year or by imprisonment in state prison for two,
four, or six years. (Penal Code (PC) § 193(c)(1)-(2).)
Under existing law, a driver of a vehicle involved in an
accident resulting in the death of a person who does not
immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident may 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 $1,000 nor
more than $10,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(Vehicle Code (VC) § 20001(b)(2).)
Further, existing law provides that a person who flees the scene
of the crime after committing a violation of, or upon conviction
of, vehicular manslaughter, in addition and consecutive to the
punishment prescribed, is subject to an additional term of
imprisonment of five years in state prison. (VC § 20001(c).)
AB 835 (Gipson) Page 2 of
?
Under existing law, the statute of limitations for an offense
punishable by imprisonment in state prison or county jail
pursuant to realignment may be commenced within three years
after commission of the offense, except as specified. Existing
law additionally provides that prosecution for a misdemeanor
must be commenced within one year after commission of the
offense, except as specified. (PC §§ 801, 802.)
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. (PC 803(j).)
Proposed Law:
This bill would revise the statute of limitations for the crime
of vehicular manslaughter if a person flees the scene of an
accident to one year after the person is initially identified by
law enforcement as a suspect in the commission of that offense,
or within the existing statute of limitations, whichever is
later.
Related
Legislation: AB 184 (Gatto) Chapter 765/2013 extends the
statute of limitations for fleeing the scene of an accident that
caused death or permanent, serious injury, to one year after the
person is initially identified by law enforcement as a suspect
in the commission of the offense, or within the existing statute
of limitations, whichever is later, but in no case later than
six years after the commission of the offense.
Staff
Comments: By extending the statute of limitations on the
prosecution of the offense of vehicular manslaughter if a person
AB 835 (Gipson) Page 3 of
?
flees the scene of an accident, the provisions of this bill
could result in additional prosecutions, court trials, and
convictions with sentences to county jail and state prison. The
magnitude of these costs would be dependent on various factors
including the number of violations that otherwise would not have
been subject to prosecution under existing law, and the details
of each particular case.
Based on CDCR data for the past three years (2012-2014), the
average number of commitments to state prison under PC § 192(c)
for vehicular manslaughter is 25 per year and commitments under
VC § 20001 is 84 per year. While the number of commitments to
state prison under the extended statute of limitations is
expected to be minimal, to the extent even two cases are
impacted by the extended statute of limitations, and considering
the potential length of the applicable prison term including the
five-year sentence enhancement per VC § 20001, as well as the
absence of a time limitation on the number of years since the
commission of the offense, even two commitments within a seven
to 11-year time period could result in annual prison costs in
excess of the Suspense File threshold of $50,000. This estimate
assumes an in-state contract bed cost of $27,000 per inmate per
year.
Under 2011 Realignment Legislation, the state provided funding
to the counties to place offenders in county jail for specified
felonies that previously would have required a state prison
sentence. Pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), legislation enacted
after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of
increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for
programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment
Legislation apply to local agencies only to the extent that the
state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Proposition
30 specifies that legislation defining a new crime or changing
the definition of an existing crime is not subject to this
provision, however, legislation changing the penalty for a crime
is not similarly exempted. To the extent it is determined that
the provisions of this bill change the penalty for the crime of
vehicular manslaughter by extending the period within which
violations can be prosecuted, any increase in costs to local
agencies attributable to provisions of this legislation could
potentially require annual funding from the State.
The Three-Judge Court has ordered the State to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of the prison system's design
AB 835 (Gipson) Page 4 of
?
capacity by February 28, 2016. Pursuant to its February 10, 2014
order, the Court has ordered the CDCR to implement several
population reduction measures, prohibited an increase in the
population of inmates housed in out-of-state facilities, and
indicated the Court will maintain jurisdiction over the State
for as long as necessary to ensure the State's compliance with
the 137.5 percent final benchmark is durable, and that such
durability is firmly established. Any future increases to the
State's prison population challenge the ability of the State to
reach and maintain such a "durable solution," and could require
the State to pursue one of several options, including
contracting-out for additional bed space or releasing current
inmates early onto parole.
-- END --