BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1272


                                                                    Page  1


          Date of Hearing:  January 12, 2016
          Counsel:               Sandra Uribe

                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                                  Bill Quirk, Chair





          AB  
                       1272 (Grove) - As Amended  January 4, 2016



          SUMMARY:  Requires the court to make reasonable efforts to avoid  
          scheduling a case involving a crime committed against a person  
          with a developmental disability when the prosecutor has another  
          trial set.  

          EXISTING LAW:  

          1)Entitles both the prosecution and a defendant have a right to  
            a speedy trial.  (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13.)

          2)Provides that absent good cause, a defendant is entitled to  
            have felony charges against him or her dismissed if he or she  
            is not brought to trial within 60 days after arraignment.   
            (Pen. Code, §§ 1049.5 & 1382, subd. (a)(2).)

          3)Allows a trial court to grant continuances only upon a showing  
            of "good cause."  (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (e).)

          4)States that neither the convenience of the parties nor a  
            stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause.   
            (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (e).)

          5)Provides that scheduling conflicts of a prosecutor in specific  
            types of cases does constitute good cause for a continuance.   
            (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).)








                                                                    AB 1272


                                                                    Page  2



          6)Requires the court to make reasonable efforts to avoid  
            scheduling a murder, sexual assault, child abuse, or career  
            criminal prosecution case when the prosecutor has another  
            trial set.  (Pen. Code, § 1048.1.)

          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

          COMMENTS:

          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "People with  
            developmental disabilities are victimized by violent crimes at  
            much higher rates than the general population. The  
            perpetrators often go free for reasons that include the  
            difficulties with prosecuting these complex cases.

          "Current law requires a court to make reasonable efforts to  
            avoid setting a trial for certain complex and  
            difficult-to-prosecute crimes on the same day that the  
            prosecutor is scheduled for another trial. This allows  
            district attorneys to assign specialized prosecutors to these  
            cases.

          "This bill will extend this flexibility to cases of crimes  
            against people with developmental disabilities."

          2)Trial Continuances:  A defendant has a right to a speedy trial  
            guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment of the United States  
            Constitution and by the California Constitution.  To implement  
            an accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial, the  
            Legislature has prescribed certain time periods within which  
            an accused must be brought to trial.  (See Pen. Code, § 1382.)  
             The California Supreme Court has held that a delay without  
            good cause of more than the 60-day time period is a  
            legislatively determined violation of a defendant's  
            constitutional right to a speedy trial.  (Sykes v. Superior  
            Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 83, 89.)

          Good cause is not defined in statute; rather, what constitutes  
            good cause depends on the totality of the circumstances in  
            each case.  (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 570.)   
            Generally, unavailability of the prosecutor due to calendar  








                                                                    AB 1272


                                                                    Page  3


            conflicts does not constitute good cause in and of itself.   
            (See e.g., Batey v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 952.)   
            However, the Legislature has determined that when the  
            prosecutor is unavailable to try a case involving murder,  
            career criminal prosecutions, child abuse, domestic violence,  
            certain sex offenses, and stalking, this constitutes automatic  
            good cause for a continuance of up to 10 days.  (Pen. Code, §  
            1050, subd. (g)(2).)

            Existing law also directs judges to take reasonable efforts to  
            avoid double setting a prosecutor for trial where one of the  
            cases involves a charge of murder, sexual assault, child abuse  
            or a career criminal prosecution.  (Pen. Code, § 1048.1.)

            This bill would add cases in which it is charged that the  
            victim is a person with a developmental disability, as  
            defined, to these provisions.  It does not provide that  
            automatic good cause for continuance of a criminal trial  
            includes cases where a victim is a person with a developmental  
            disability.  The court retains discretion to manage its trial  
            calendar.

          3)Argument in Support:  According to the Arc and United Cerebral  
            Palsy California Collaboration, the sponsor of this bill,  
            "Current law requires a court to make reasonable efforts to  
            avoid setting a trial for certain complex and  
            difficult-to-prosecute crimes on the same day that the  
            prosecutor is scheduled for another trial. This allows  
            district attorneys to assign specialized prosecutors to these  
            cases.

            "The bill will extend this flexibility to cases of crimes  
            against people with developmental disabilities.

            "Supporting an identical provision of SB 663 (Lara) of 2014,  
            the Judicial Council wrote:

               'The council believes that cases involving crimes  
               against persons with developmental disabilities are  
               very difficult, very sensitive, and much more  
               challenging than other criminal cases. Thus, the  
               council believes that it is reasonable to require  








                                                                    AB 1272


                                                                    Page  4


               courts to make reasonable efforts to avoid setting  
               these trials on the same day that another case is set  
               for trial involving the same prosecuting attorney.   
               The council also notes that the population to which SB  
               663 applies is not so large that it would make it  
               difficult for the courts to make this accommodation.   
               SB 663 also gives court flexibility because it  
               requires courts to make "reasonable efforts" to make  
               this accommodation rather than requiring courts to do  
               so in all instances.'"

          4)Prior Legislation:

             a)   SB 663 (Lara) of the 2013-2014 Legislative session would  
               have, in part, added cases in which it is charged that the  
               victim is developmentally disabled to the provisions  
               directing courts to make reasonable efforts to not set  
               conflicting trial dates for a prosecutor.  SB 663 was  
               amended to an unrelated subject matter.  

             b)   AB 501 (Nakano), Chapter 382, Statutes of 1999, required  
               reasonable efforts to be made by the court in scheduling a  
               trial date for a vertical prosecution career criminal case  
               to avoid setting that trial on the same day another trial  
               is set for the same prosecuting attorney.

          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
          
          Support

          The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration  
          (Sponsor)

          Opposition
          
          None
          
          Analysis Prepared  
          by:              Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744,  Sandy  
          Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744










                                                                    AB 1272


                                                                    Page  5