SB 14,
as amended, Lara. Sexual battery: consent defense:begin delete minors,end deletebegin insert minor’send insert sexual conduct.
Existing civil law makes a person who commits a sexual battery, as defined, upon another liable to that person for damages and authorizes a court to award equitable relief, as specified. Existing civil law provides that he or she who consents to an act is not wronged by it.
This bill would prohibit consent from being a defense in any sexual battery civil action if the person committing the sexual battery is a specified adult who is in a position of authority and is able to exercise undue influence, as defined, over the minor.
Under existing law, in any civil action alleging conduct which constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances of plaintiff’s sexual conduct, or any of that evidence, is not admissible by the defendant in order to prove consent by the plaintiff or the absence of injury to the plaintiff. Existing law requires specified procedures to be followed in any civil action alleging conduct constituting sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery if evidence of sexual conduct of the plaintiff is offered to attack the credibility of the plaintiff, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court in its discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will either necessitate undue consumption of time or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.
This billbegin delete wouldend delete, in any sexual battery civil action involving a minor and an adult who is in a position of authority as described above, begin insertwould
end insertprohibit evidence of the plaintiff minor’s sexual conduct with the defendant adult from being admissible to prove consent by the plaintiff or the absence of injury to the plaintiff. The bill would authorize such evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct to be introduced only to attack the credibility of the plaintiff or to prove something other than consent by the plaintiff if, upon a hearing of the court out of the presence of the jury, the defendant proves that the probative value of that evidence outweighs the prejudice to the plaintiff, as specified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1708.5.5 is added to the Civil Code, to
2read:
(a) Notwithstanding Section 3515, consent shall not
4be a defense in any civil action under Section 1708.5 if the person
5who commits the sexual battery is an adult who is in a position of
6authority over the minor.
7(b) For purposes of this section, begin deletea personend deletebegin insert an adultend insert is in a
8“position of authority” if he or she, by reason of that position, is
9able to exercise undue influence over a minor. A “position of
10authority” includes, but is not limited to, a natural parent,
11stepparent, foster parent, relative, partner of any such parent or
12relative, caretaker, begin deleteadultend delete
youth leader, recreationalbegin delete director who begin insert director,end insert athletic manager,
13is an adult, adultend deletebegin delete adultend delete coach, teacher,
14counselor, therapist, religious leader, doctor,begin delete adultend delete employee of
15one of those aforementioned persons, orbegin delete adultend delete coworker.
16(c) For purposes of this section “undue influence” has the same
17meaning as in Section 15610.70 of the Welfare and Institutions
18Code.
Section 1106 of the Evidence Code is amended to read:
(a) In any civil action alleging conduct which constitutes
3sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, opinion
4evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances
5of plaintiff’s sexual conduct, or any of that evidence, is not
6admissible by the defendant in order to prove consent by the
7plaintiff or the absence of injury to the plaintiff, unless the injury
8alleged by the plaintiff is in the nature of loss of consortium.
9(b) Subdivision (a) shall not be applicable to evidence of the
10plaintiff’s sexual conduct with the alleged perpetrator.
11(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), in any civil action brought
12pursuant to Section 1708.5 of the Civil
Code involving a minor
13and adult as described in Section 1708.5.5 of the Civil Code,
14evidence of the plaintiff minor’s sexual conduct with the defendant
15adult shall not be admissible to prove consent by the plaintiff or
16the absence of injury to the plaintiff. Such evidence of the
17plaintiff’s sexual conduct may only be introduced to attack the
18credibility of the plaintiff in accordance with Section 783 or to
19prove something other than consent by the plaintiff if, upon a
20hearing of the court out of the presence of the jury, the defendant
21proves that the probative value of that evidence outweighs the
22prejudice to the plaintiff consistent with Section 352.
23(d) If the plaintiff introduces evidence, including testimony of
24a witness, or the plaintiff as a witness gives testimony, and the
25evidence or testimony relates to the plaintiff’s sexual conduct, the
26defendant may cross-examine the witness who gives the testimony
27and offer relevant evidence
limited specifically to the rebuttal of
28the evidence introduced by the plaintiff or given by the plaintiff.
29(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to make
30inadmissible any evidence offered to attack the credibility of the
31plaintiff as provided in Section 783.
O
97