BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1867|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1867
Author: Steinorth (R)
Amended: 3/31/16 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/11/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Evidence: judicial notice: official records of
conviction
SOURCE: California District Attorneys Association
DIGEST: This bill, for purposes of judicial notice of criminal
conviction records, expands an existing definition of
"electronically digitized copy" to also allow a court to take
judicial notice of an electronically digitized copy of the
record that does not bear any electronic signature or watermark
as is currently required, but that, instead, is a certified copy
of an official record of conviction, as specified, that has been
transmitted by the clerk of the superior court in a manner
showing that the copy was prepared and transmitted by that clerk
of the superior court. This bill provides that a seal,
signature, or other indicia of the court shall constitute
adequate showing.
ANALYSIS:
AB 1867
Page 2
Existing law:
1)Defines "hearsay evidence" as evidence of a statement that was
made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing
and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Existing law provides that, except as provided by law, hearsay
evidence is inadmissible. These provisions are collectively
known as the "hearsay rule."
2)Provides that evidence of a writing made as a record of an
act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the
hearsay rule when offered in any civil or criminal proceeding
to prove the act, condition, or event, if:
the writing was made by and within the scope of duty of
a public employee;
the writing was made at or near the time of the act,
condition, or event; and
the sources of information and method and time of
preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness.
1)Provides that the content of a writing may be proven by
introducing the otherwise admissible original. Existing law,
the "Secondary Evidence Rule," provides that the content of a
writing may also be proved by otherwise admissible secondary
evidence. The Secondary Evidence Rule further requires,
however, that the court exclude secondary evidence of the
content of writing if the court determines either of the
following:
a genuine dispute exists concerning material terms of
the writing and justice requires the exclusion; or
admission of the secondary evidence would be unfair.
AB 1867
Page 3
1)Provides, under the Secondary Evidence Rule, that nothing in
the above makes admissible oral testimony to prove the content
of a writing if the testimony is inadmissible under specified
law regarding oral testimony of the content of a writing.
Existing law further provides that nothing in these provisions
excuses compliance with Section 1401 of the Evidence Code,
below, requiring authentication of a writing.
2)Requires, in a criminal action, that the court exclude
secondary evidence of the content of a writing under specified
circumstances. This provision, however, does not apply to,
among other things, a copy of a writing in the custody of a
public entity, or a copy of a writing that is recorded in the
public records, if the record or a certified copy of it is
made evidence of the writing by statute.
3)Requires, under Section 1401 of the Evidence Code, that
authentication of a writing before it can be received in
evidence and also requires authentication of a writing before
secondary evidence of its content can be received in evidence.
4)Provides that a seal is presumed to be genuine and its use
authorized if it purports to be the seal of, among other
things:
the United States (U.S.) or a department, agency, or
public employee of the U.S.;
a public entity in the U.S. or a department, agency, or
public employee of such public entity; or
a notary public within any state of the U.S.
1)Provides that a signature is presumed to be genuine and
authorized if it purports to be the signature, affixed in his
official capacity, of:
a public employee of the U.S.;
AB 1867
Page 4
a public employee of any public entity in the U.S.; or
a notary public within any state of the U.S.
1)Provides under Section 1530 of the Evidence Code, in relevant
part, that a purported copy of a writing in the custody of a
public entity, or of an entry in such a writing, is prima
facie evidence of the existence and content of such writing or
entry if:
the copy purports to be published by the authority of
the nation or state, or public entity therein in which the
writing is kept;
the office in which the writing is kept is within the
U.S or specified territories and the copy is attested or
certified as a correct copy of the writing or entry by a
public employee, or a deputy of a public employee, having
the legal custody of the writing; or
the office in which the writing is kept is not within
the U.S. or any other territory described, above, and the
copy is attested as a correct copy of the writing or entry
by a person having authority to make attestation, as
specified.
1)Provides that judicial notice may be taken of the specified
matters, including official acts of the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments of the U.S. and any state
of the U.S., and records of any court of this state, any other
state or the U.S.
2)Provides, under Section 452.5 of the Evidence Code, that the
official acts and records specified above include any
computer-generated official court records, as specified by the
Judicial Council, that relate to criminal convictions, when
the record is certified by a superior court clerk pursuant to
the Government Code at the time of computer entry.
3)Provides further that an official record of conviction
AB 1867
Page 5
certified in accordance with Section 1530, above, as
specified, or an electronically digitized copy thereof, is
admissible to prove the commission, attempted commission, or
solicitation of a criminal offense, prior conviction, service
of a prison term, or other act, condition, or event recorded
by the record. Existing law provides "electronically
digitized copy" means a copy that is made by scanning,
photographing, or otherwise exactly reproducing a document, is
stored or maintained in a digitized format, and bears an
electronic signature or watermark unique to the entity
responsible for certifying the document.
This bill defines "electronically digitized copy," instead, to
mean a copy that is made by scanning, photographing, or
otherwise exactly reproducing a document, is stored or
maintained in a digitized format, and meets either of the
following:
1)the copy bears an electronic signature or watermark unique to
the entity responsible for certifying the document; or
2)the document that is copied is an official record of
conviction, certified in accordance with existing law, that is
transmitted by the superior court clerk in a manner showing
that the copy was prepared and transmitted by that clerk. A
seal, signature, or other indicia of the court shall
constitute adequate showing.
Background
Under the doctrine of "judicial notice," certain matters are
assumed to be indisputably true, and the introduction of
evidence to prove them will not be required. Judicial notice is
thus a substitute for formal proof. (See generally Evid. Code
Sec. 450 et seq.) The use of judicial notice as a substitute
for formal proof of matters that cannot be successfully
controverted is seen as a highly desirable means of saving time
and money. Nevertheless, considerations of relevance remain
applicable. Thus, even material for which judicial notice might
seem mandatory may be excluded under other provisions of the
Evidence Code, such as Section 350, which provides that only
AB 1867
Page 6
relevant evidence is admissible, or Section 352, which allows
for the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence where its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability
of its prejudicial effect. (See 1 Witkin Cal. Evid. Judicial
Notice Sec. 1.)
There are certain matters listed under Section 451 of the
Evidence Code of which judicial notice must be taken (compulsory
judicial notice) regardless of whether a party makes a request.
These include for example, the decisional, constitutional, and
public statutory law of this state and of the United States, as
well as facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are
so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject
of dispute. There are other broader matters listed in Section
452 of the Evidence Code as to which judicial notice "may" be
taken (optional judicial notice-though once a party requests it,
it becomes compulsory and the court must grant judicial notice
under Section 453 of the Evidence Code). (See id. at Sec. 4.)
Those include, for example, official acts of the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of
any state of the United States, as well as any court records of
this state, or any court of record of the United States or of
any state of the United States. (Evid. Code Sec. 452(c), (d).)
Of particular relevance to this bill, the Criminal Convictions
Record Act, Section 452.5 of the Evidence Code, provides that
such official acts and records (of which judicial notice may be
taken) include computer-generated official court records which
relate to criminal convictions, when the record is certified by
a clerk of the superior court pursuant to the Government Code at
the time of computer entry. Most pertinent to this bill, this
section also allows an official record of conviction, certified
as a correct copy by a public employee, or a deputy of a public
employee, having the legal custody of the writing (or by other
authorized method), to be admitted to prove the commission,
attempted commission, or solicitation of a criminal offense,
prior conviction, service of a prison term, or other act,
condition, or event recorded by the record. Moreover, as a
result of legislation enacted in 2013, SB 378 (Block, Chapter
150, Statutes of 2013), an electronically digitized copy of an
official record of conviction is also admissible under this Act
to prove the commission, attempted commission, or solicitation
AB 1867
Page 7
of a criminal offense, prior conviction, service of a prison
term, or other act, condition, or event recorded by the record
as well. That legislation specified that for these purposes,
"electronically digitized copy" means a copy that: (1) is made
by scanning, photographing, or otherwise exactly reproducing a
document; (2) is stored or maintained in a digitized format;
and (3) bears an electronic signature or watermark unique to the
entity responsible for certifying the document.
This bill now expands "electronically digitized copy" for these
purposes to include a copy that: (1) is made by scanning,
photographing, or otherwise exactly reproducing a document; (2)
is stored or maintained in a digitized format; and (3) is
certified as an official record of conviction, as specified, and
transmitted by the superior court clerk in a manner showing
(such as by a seal, signature, or other indicia of the court)
that the copy was prepared and transmitted by that clerk.
Comment
According to the author:
Although courts are already allowed to prepare such documents
electronically, the requirement to use electronic signatures
or watermarks prevents most courts from using the electronic
system due to the lack of training, funds, and resources
required for implementation. Consequently, the system is
outdated as courts continue to use paper hard copies of
records. In using paper copies, [district attorney] offices
and other attorneys are often required to physically travel
back and forth to court clerk offices to obtain these records,
instead of being able to e-mail them.
By allowing courts to scan or photocopy existing paper records
for digital use, we can modernize our court system without
requiring any new equipment or additional training. Instead,
court clerks will be able to use existing equipment they are
already familiar with to transmit documents electronically.
AB 1867
Page 8
AB 1867 will [ . . . ] allow for the use of copies of official
records of conviction. Instead of requiring that conviction
records must be prepared electronically with electronic
signatures or watermarks, this bill will allow court clerk
offices to scan/photocopy existing hard copy records in order
to store or transmit them electronically. The copied records
must contain a seal, signature, or other indicia of the court
for purposes of ensuring authenticity.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified6/17/16)
California District Attorneys Association (source)
Judicial Council
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/17/16)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsor of this bill, the
California District Attorneys Association, writes that:
District Attorney offices around the state have large rooms
overflowing with certified paper records of prior convictions
for use in court when defendants commit a crime and we need to
prove that they have suffered a prior conviction that affects
their sentence. These have been obtained over the years by
ordering them from court clerks' offices when needed to prove
a prior conviction, and they are saved for later use should
the defendant commit another crime where that prior conviction
needs to be proven again.
AB 1867
Page 9
As more DA offices move to paperless systems, we need to be
able to scan and save those documents electronically. We
would further like to obtain these records from court clerks'
offices via email or fax and keep that record in the first
instance only in its electronic form. Right now, we cannot do
either of these things, because a scanned, faxed, or
electronic copy of a certified copy of a prior conviction from
the court is inadmissible.
Currently, California law allows court clerks' offices to
prepare records of prior convictions electronically, and if
they are so prepared, to allow them to be presented in court
electronically. In order to take advantage of this law, a
court clerk's office would have to affix an electronic
signature or watermark to the electronically certified
documents. While it may not seem difficult or costly to
acquire the technology, train the staff, and actually put in
place the method of preparing such documents electronically,
with court budgets under tremendous strain, it is not
happening. Instead, we continue to receive certified copies
of prior convictions in paper form with original signatures on
the certifications.
[ . . . ] AB 1867 would allow for the introduction of
electronic copies, faxes, or paper copies of certified prior
documents, which would make it easier to adopt paperless court
procedures for all parties. This would allow the electronic
storage and presentation of certified prior documents, and
also allow court clerks' offices to use their existing
certification methods for prior documents, but to just send
them electronically to all counsel for use in court.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Attorneys for
Criminal Justice writes in opposition:
Thousands of prison sentences in California are increased or
extended based upon prior convictions. These sentences are
often doubled or more based on prior convictions. Judges who
impose sentences rely on prior convictions as well. Therefore
AB 1867
Page 10
it is critical that precise safeguards are utilized to ensure
documents admitted under "judicial notice" are accurate.
AB 1867 may be well intentioned, however, it weakens the
definition of "electronically digitized copy" and therefore
opens the door to courts relying on inaccurate documents.
Currently, Evidence Code 452.5 requires an electronic
signature or unique watermark [be] affixed to [the] document
to be considered an "electronically digitized copy." These
markings essentially attach to the electronic document to
ensure that the document is not altered in any way as it
passes through various hands. Unfortunately, AB 1867 makes
this electronic signature or watermark requirement optional.
It appears that this bill would allow a court record to be
emailed directly to a prosecutor, and the prosecutor could
simply print out the document and bring it to court to request
judicial notice of the document. [ . . . ] AB 1867 simply
requires that the email sent to the prosecutor's office
include a signature that it is being sent directly from a
court clerk. This is common when prosecutors seek to
introduce convictions from other counties. There is no
requirement that the document itself have a unique identifier
affixed to it to ensure authenticity. Documents go through
many hands in a district attorney's office. It is critical
that an emailed copy contain an identifier directly affixed to
it to ensure that no one intentionally or otherwise alters it.
This bill opens the door to mischief. Essentially, after a
document is printed out, it could be altered before being
presented to a court for judicial notice. It could also be
altered by someone other than the prosecutor who appears in
court, and she would have no basis to determine whether the
document is in fact an identical copy in a court file. There
are no safeguards attached to the document itself. While the
overwhelming majority of prosecutors in California are highly
professional and ethical, there are too many examples of
prosecutorial misconduct.
Recently, a prosecutor in Kern County falsified a transcript
of an interrogation to include a fabricated statement of
admission of guilt by the accused. The prosecutor claimed the
AB 1867
Page 11
alteration was a bad joke that was being misconstrued.
However, this demonstrates how easy it is for a prosecutor to
falsify a document when there is no requirement for a
certifying watermark. [ . . . ] This bill may be well
intentioned, but it weakens key protections in current law.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/11/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow,
Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos,
Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh,
Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gordon,
Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark
Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,
Wood
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gonzalez, Rendon
Prepared by:Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
6/17/16 15:03:45
**** END ****