BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1761 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016 Counsel: Sandra Uribe ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair AB 1761 (Weber) - As Amended March 28, 2016 As Proposed to be Amended in Committee SUMMARY: Creates a human trafficking affirmative defense applicable to non-violent, non-serious, non-trafficking crimes. Specifically, this bill: 1)States that, in addition to any other affirmative defense, it is a defense to a crime that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a human trafficking victim at the time of the offense and of reasonable fear of harm. 2)States that this affirmative defense does not apply to a serious felony, a violent felony, or the offense of human trafficking, as specified. 3)Establishes the standard of proof for the human trafficking affirmative defense as the preponderance of evidence standard. 4)States that certifying records from federal, state, tribal, or local court or government certifying agencies for documents such as U or T visas, may be presented to establish the affirmative defense. AB 1761 Page 2 5)Provides that the human trafficking affirmative defense can be asserted at any time before entry of plea or before the end of a trial. The defense can also be determined at the preliminary hearing. 6)Entitles a person who successfully raises the human trafficking affirmative defense to the following relief: a) Sealing of all court records in the case; b) Release from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the charge, and all actions that led to the charge shall be deemed not to have occurred; and c) Permission to attest in all circumstances that he or she has never been arrested for, or charged with the subject crime, including in financial aid, housing, employment, and loan applications. 7)States that, in any juvenile delinquency proceeding, if the court finds that the alleged offense was committed as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking then it shall dismiss the case and automatically seal the case records. 8)States that the person may not be thereafter charged with perjury or otherwise giving a false statement based on the above relief. 9)States that in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, if the court finds that the offense charged in the proceedings was committed as a direct result of the minor being a victim of human trafficking, and the affirmative defense was established by a preponderance of the evidence, then the court shall dismiss the proceedings and order automatic record sealing. 10)Provides that in a criminal action expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or defense regarding the effects of human trafficking on its victims, including, but not limited to the nature and effect of physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of human trafficking victims. AB 1761 Page 3 11)States that the requisite foundation for the introduction of this expert testimony will be established if the proponent of the evidence shows its relevance and the proper qualifications of the expert witness. EXISTING LAW: 1)Guarantees a defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. (U.S. Const., VI Amend., Cal. Const. art. I, §. 15.) 2)Provides that all persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to specified classes, including person who committed the act or made the omission charged under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused. (Pen. Code, § 26.) 3)States that all relevant evidence is admissible unless it is made inadmissible by some statutory or constitutional provision. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(f)(2), Evid. Code, § 351.) 4)Provides that the court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Evid. Code, § 352.) 5)States that a person is qualified to testify as an expert if he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient for the court to deem the person qualified on a subject about which he or she is asked to express an opinion. (Evid. Code, § 720.) 6)Limits expert testimony to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of that expert would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a).) 7)Authorizes expert testimony in criminal cases by either the AB 1761 Page 4 prosecution or defense regarding intimate partner battering and its effects, including the nature and effect of physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic violence, except when offered against a defendant to prove the occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis of a criminal charge. (Evid. Code, § 1107, subd. (a).) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Too often our survivors of human trafficking are forced to commit crimes under threat (directly and indirectly) from their traffickers. The trauma of being a victim of human trafficking is untold. In addition to sexual, emotional, and physical abuse, human trafficking victims are arrested and convicted for crimes they were forced to take part in by their traffickers. For too long, we have compounded this trauma by arresting and charging victims of human trafficking for crimes they committed directly related to their time spent as a trafficking victim. These victims are charged with crimes, while their traffickers are shielded. This bill seeks to remedy this situation and create avenues for victims to be identified and the traffickers prosecuted." 2)Affirmative Defense: A victim of trafficking who is charged with a crime may be able to raise the defense of duress. Duress is said to excuse criminal conduct where the actor was under an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, which threat caused the actor to engage in conduct violating the literal terms of the criminal law. 'if there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, 'a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm,' the defenses will fail.' (People v. Heath (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 892, 899-900, citations omitted.) "Persons (unless the crime is punishable with death) who commits the act or made the omission charged under threats or menace suffices to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused" are not guilty of the crime. (Pen. Code, § 26.) A court has AB 1761 Page 5 a duty to give a duress instruction on its own motion if it is supported by substantial evidence and is not inconsistent with the defense theory. (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331.) The defendant acted under duress if, because of threat or menace, he or she believed that his or her or someone else's life would be in immediate danger if he or she refused a demand or request to commit the crime. The demand or request may have been expressed or implied. The defendant's belief must have been reasonable. When deciding whether the defendant's belief was reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in the same position as the defendant would have believed. CALCRIM 3402. Duress applies if the defendant has been threatened with imminent great bodily harm. (See People v. Otis (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 119, 124; United States v. Bailey (1980) 444 U.S. 394, 409.) Also, although this is not reflected in the instruction, duress probably applies if the instigator threatens harm to another person. (See Heath, supra, at p. 898, discussing People v. Pena (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14, 21-25 [a necessity defense due to threats to a third party].) The sponsors of this bill believe the duress defense is inadequate for trafficking victims because a victim may not be able to show his or her life was in immediate danger. Accordingly, this bill creates a separate human trafficking affirmative defense. Under the newly created defense, the person will be required to show by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she was coerced to commit the crime as a direct result of being a victim of trafficking at the time of the crime, and of reasonable fear of harm. The coercion requirement will prevent a trafficking victim from raising the defense when he or she commits a crime for personal gain, as opposed to at the behest of his or her trafficker. In addition, the requirement that the person be a victim of trafficking at the time of the offense, will preclude a trafficking survivor from using the defense years later to escape liability for criminal conduct AB 1761 Page 6 because he or she was a victim in the past. It should be noted that this defense will not apply to all crimes. A trafficking victim cannot raise the defense when charged with a serious felony as described in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c), a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c), or with regard to a charge of human trafficking. The latter crime is excluded from application so that a victim of trafficking does not escape liability for becoming a recruiter for his or her trafficker. 3)Expert Testimony: Evidence Code section 1107 generally makes admissible in a criminal action expert testimony regarding "intimate partner battering and its effects, including the physical, emotional, or mental effects upon the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic violence . . . ." As explained by the California Supreme Court: Battered women's syndrome "has been defined as 'a series of common characteristics that appear in women who are abused physically and psychologically over an extended period of time by the dominant male figure in their lives.' (State v. Kelly (1984) 97 N.J. 178, 193 [478 A.2d 364, 371]; see also People v. Aris (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1194 [264 Cal. Rptr. 167] [' "a pattern of psychological symptoms that develop after somebody has lived in a battering relationship" ']; Note, Battered Women Who Kill Their Abusers (1993) 106 Harv.L.Rev. 1574, 1578 ['a "pattern of responses and perceptions presumed to be characteristic of women who have been subjected to continuous physical abuse by their mate[s] " ' ].)" (People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 735, fn. 1; see also People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1083-84.) This bill applies the same principles to expert testimony regarding the effects of human trafficking to its victims. 4)Argument in Support: According to the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), the sponsor of this bill, "1761 creates important protections for trafficking survivors AB 1761 Page 7 to deal with the unique nature of the trafficking crime. In CAST's experience as a service provider working with hundreds of trafficking survivors in California, an affirmative defense will create an additional pathway for trafficking victims to be identified as the victims they are so that the real perpetrators can be prosecuted. It also ensures that the complexities of trafficking crimes can be appropriately described to judges and juries.? "Usually a leader in creative approaches to protect trafficking victims, California is far behind other states in offering an affirmative defense for trafficking victims. So, far 34 states have passed this legislation to better protect trafficking victims. It is costly not just to the victims, but also to the state of California to convict trafficking victims for crimes their traffickers force them to commit. These funds could be better spent prosecuting traffickers. "AB 1761 creates an affirmative defense against a charge of a non-violent crime that was committed as a direct result of being a human trafficking victim. ? As a special protection for minor sex trafficking victims, AB 1761 requires the court to dismiss any charges arising from a commercial sex trafficking act against a person who was under 18 years of age, whether or not the defendant asserts the affirmative defense. Finally, AB 1761 grants trafficking victims who prevail on the affirmative defense the right to have all records in the case sealed and ensures they do not suffer long-term consequences from their arrest. "In recognition of the complex dynamics of trafficking crimes, AB 1761 also creates a presumption that expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the defense regarding the effects of human trafficking on human trafficking victims." 5)Arguments in Opposition: a) The California District Attorneys Association writes, "[w]e do not need a new rule of evidence to allow parties to call an expert witness to educate the trier of fact on issues relating to human trafficking. California law has AB 1761 Page 8 long provided that 'any person who has special knowledge, skill or experience in any occupation, trade or craft may be qualified as an expert in his field.' (People v. King (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 437, 445.) California courts allow experts to help explain a wide variety of human behaviors and to explain why people respond in strange ways to traumatic events such as rape trauma, child abuse accommodation syndrome, post-traumatic stress, gang culture, domestic violence, and battered women's syndrome, just to name a few." b) The California State Sheriffs' Association states, "Duress is an existing defense and prosecutors often decline to pursue criminal charges against the persons contemplated by this bill, especially when it can help bring human traffickers to justice. As such, this bill represents an unnecessary tilting of the playing field by effectively absolving certain persons of criminal liability." 6)Related Legislation: a) AB 1675 (Stone) would provide that a minor who commits the crimes of solicitation, prostitution, or loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court rather than delinquency court. AB 1675 is pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. b) AB 1760 (Santiago) would direct a peace officer who determines that a minor is a victim of human trafficking to report such abuse, consult with a child welfare worker about a safe placement for the minor, and transport the minor to such placement, unless the minor is otherwise arrested.. AB 1760 will be heard in this Committee today. c) AB 1762 (Campos) would allow a person convicted of a nonviolent crime while he or she was human trafficking victim to apply to vacate the conviction at any time after it was entered. AB 1762 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 1761 Page 9 7)Prior Legislation: a) AB 1585 (Alejo), Chapter 708, Statutes of 2014, provides that a defendant who has been convicted of solicitation or prostitution, as specified, may petition the court to set aside the conviction, and allows the court to set it aside if the defendant can show that the conviction was the result of his/her status as a victim of human trafficking. b) AB 694 (Bloom), Chapter 126, Statutes of 2013, clarified that evidence that a victim of human trafficking has engaged in a commercial sex act cannot be used to prosecute that victim for the commercial sex act. c) SB 327 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have allowed a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted when competent and substantial expert testimony relating to human trafficking was not presented at trial for a crime in which the defendant was a victim of human trafficking. SB 327 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File. d) AB 785 (Eaves), Chapter 812, Statutes of 1991, made expert testimony regarding battered women's syndrome admissible in court under specified conditions. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (Co-sponsor) National Council of Jewish Women- California (Co-sponsor) Act for Women and Girls American Academy of Pediatrics American Association of University Women, Long Beach American Civil Liberties Union California Council of Churches Impact California Partnership to End Domestic Violence California Public Defenders Association California Women's Law Center Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking Survivor Advisory AB 1761 Page 10 Council Housing California Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California Junior Leagues of California Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy Opening Doors Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism Opposition Alameda County District Attorney California District Attorneys Association California State Sheriffs' Association Sacramento County District Attorney Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744