BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1272 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Grove |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |January 13, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Criminal Procedure: Trial Schedule Conflicts
HISTORY
Source: The Arc
United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration
Prior Legislation:AB 2814 (Koretz) failed Senate Public Safety
2006
AB 1273 (Nakanishi) Chapter 133, Stats. 2003
AB 2653 (Chu) - Chapter 788,
Stats. 2002
AB 2125 (Pacheco) Chapter
268, Stats. 2000
SB 69 (Murray) Chapter 580,
Stats. 1999
AB 501 (Nakano) Chapter
382, Stats. 1999
AB 1754 (Havice) Chapter 61, Stats.
1998
SB 215 (Alpert) Chapter
69, Stats. 1997
SB 1292 (Maddy) Chapter
897, Stats. 1989
AB 452 (Bronzan) Chapter
461, Stats. 1987
AB 1272 (Grove ) Page
2 of ?
Support: California District Attorneys Association;
Disability Rights California; Judicial Council of
California
Opposition: None known
Assembly Floor Vote:78 - 0
PURPOSE
This bill 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 entitles both the prosecution and a defendant to a
right to a speedy trial. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13.)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code §§1049.5 & 1382 (a)(2).)
Existing law allows a trial court to grant continuances only
upon a showing of "good cause." (Penal Code §1050 (e).)
Existing law states that neither the convenience of the parties
nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause.
(Penal Code, §1050 (e).)
Existing law provides that scheduling conflicts of a prosecutor
in specific types of cases does constitute good cause for a
continuance. (Penal Code §1050 (g)(2).)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code §1048.1.)
Existing law provides that "developmental disability" means a
disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years
of age; continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely;
and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As
defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in
AB 1272 (Grove ) Page
3 of ?
consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this
term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy,
epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling
conditions found to be closely related to intellectual
disability or to require treatment similar to that required for
individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not
include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical
in nature. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 4512 (a).)
This bill provides that the court shall also make reasonable
efforts to avoid scheduling a trial where an offense is alleged
to have occurred against a person with a developmental
disability.
This bill defines developmental disability as the meaning found
in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4512.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several 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
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 December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
AB 1272 (Grove ) Page
4 of ?
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 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).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 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 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
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need For This Bill
According to the author:
Prosecution of a case in which the victim has a
AB 1272 (Grove ) Page
5 of ?
developmental disability can be complex and difficult for
several reasons. In cases where the victim has an
intellectual disability, the prosecutor may need to use
specialized interviewing techniques, and the prosecutor
may need to spend more with the victim to gain the
victim's trust. In cases involving either intellectual or
physical disabilities, in which the victim has speech
challenges, an inexperienced prosecutor may have
difficulty. In addition, a prosecutor who is not trained
or experienced in conveying to a jury that a witness with
a developmental disability can be a credible witness may
be at a disadvantage in a trial.
Assigning an inexperienced or untrained prosecutor to a
trail can put the prosecution at an unfair disadvantage.
2. Sixth Amendment
A defendant has a right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article
I, Section 13, of the California Constitution. The United
States Supreme Court set forth a four-element test in
determining whether a delay in trial violated federal
constitutional standards: "Length of delay, the reason for the
delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to
the defendant." (Barker v. Wing (1972) 407 U.S. 514, 530.) The
California Supreme Court has held that a delay without good
cause of more than the sixty-day time period set forth in Penal
Code Section 1382 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.)
3. Trial Setting
As noted above, 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 Penal Code, § 1382.) To
go beyond the time frames good cause must be shown. 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,
AB 1272 (Grove ) Page
6 of ?
unavailability of the prosecutor due to calendar 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. (Penal Code, § 1050(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. (Penal 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.
-- END -