BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 382|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 382
Author: Lara (D)
Amended: 7/8/15
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/12/15
AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SENATE FLOOR: 24-13, 5/26/15
AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Hancock,
Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva,
Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Roth,
Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Runner, Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, Hall
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-15, 7/16/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Juveniles: jurisdiction: sentencing
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill adds guidance to the existing criteria used
by judges in determining the fitness of a minor to have his or
her case adjudicated in juvenile court.
Assembly Amendments make changes to some of the wording in the
bill consistent with its provisions as passed by the Senate.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
SB 382
Page 2
1)Provides in any case where the juvenile court determines
fitness of the minor, the court must examine whether the minor
would or would not be amenable to the care, treatment, and
training program available through the juvenile court, based
upon an evaluation of the following criteria:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor;
b) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction;
c) The minor's previous delinquent history;
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor; and,
e) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in
the petition to have been committed by the minor.
2)Authorizes a minor who has had his case prosecuted in adult
criminal court, without a prior fitness hearing, to make a
motion to receive a disposition under the juvenile court law,
based upon each of the following five criteria:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
person;
b) Whether the person can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction;
c) The person's previous delinquent history;
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the person; and,
e) The circumstances and gravity of the offense for which
the person has been convicted.
This bill:
SB 382
Page 3
1)Adds the following discretionary factors within each of the
existing five criteria used to determine whether a minor is a
fit and proper subject to be dealt with in the juvenile court
system:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor. Specifies that the juvenile court may give weight
to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the
minor's age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical,
mental, and emotional health at the time of the alleged
offense, the minor's impetuosity or failure to appreciate
risks and consequences of criminal behavior, the effect of
familial, adult, or peer pressure on the minor's actions,
and the effect of the minor's family and community
environment and childhood trauma on the minor's criminal
sophistication;
b) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction. Provides
that the juvenile court may give weight to any relevant
factor, including, but not limited to, the minor's
potential to grow and mature;
c) The minor's previous delinquent history. Provides the
juvenile court may give weight to any relevant factor,
including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the
minor's previous delinquent history and the effect of the
minor's family and community environment and childhood
trauma on the minor's previous delinquent behavior;
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor. Specifies that the juvenile court
may give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not
limited to, the adequacy of the services previously
provided to address the minor's needs; and,
e) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in
the petition to have been committed by the minor.
Specifies that the juvenile court may give weight to any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the actual
behavior of the person, the mental state of the person, the
person's degree of involvement in the crime, the level of
SB 382
Page 4
harm actually caused by the person, and the person's mental
and emotional development.
2)Revises the five criteria that a juvenile must demonstrate to
the court when requesting a juvenile court disposition in his
or her case, which was initiated in adult criminal court
without a prior finding that the person was not fit for
juvenile court, to add the same discretionary factors above.
Background
The purpose of juvenile court law is to provide for the
protection and safety of the public and each minor under the
jurisdiction of the court and to preserve and strengthen family
ties when possible, as specified. (WIC § 202 (a).) "Minors
under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a consequence of
delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of
public safety and protection, receive care, treatment, and
guidance that is consistent with their best interest, that holds
them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for
their circumstances. This guidance may include punishment that
is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives of this
chapter." (WIC § 202(b).)
California law generally provides that persons under the age of
18 who are alleged to have committed a crime are within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court. However, California law
contains three discrete mechanisms for remanding minors to adult
criminal court:
1)Statutory or legislative waiver requires that minors 14 years
of age or older who are alleged to have committed specified
murder and sex offenses be prosecuted in adult criminal court
(WIC § 602(a));
2)Prosecutorial waiver gives prosecutors the discretion to file
cases against minors 14 and older, depending upon their age,
alleged offense and offense history, in juvenile or adult
criminal court (WIC § 707(d)); and
3)Judicial waiver gives courts the discretion to evaluate
whether a minor is unfit for juvenile court based on specified
SB 382
Page 5
criteria. (WIC § 707 (a), (b) and (c).)
The fitness criteria set forth in statute are the basis by which
the juvenile court evaluates whether a minor is amenable to the
care, treatment and training available through the juvenile
court. A minor is not required to establish innocence in order
to show amenability to the juvenile court system, and the fact
that a minor did commit the charged offense does not
automatically require a finding of unfitness. (People v.
Superior Court (Jones) 18 Cal.4th 667, 682 (1998).) A finding
of amenability must be based on evidence and supported by
findings addressed to each and every one of the criteria. (Id.
at 683.)
Though the standards for determining a minor's fitness for
treatment as a juvenile lack explicit definition . . . it is
clear from the statute that the court must go beyond the
circumstances surrounding the offense itself and the minor's
possible denial of involvement in such offense. The court may
consider a minor's past record of delinquency, and must take
into account his behavior pattern as described in the probation
officer's report. (H. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 709,
714 (citations omitted; emphasis in original.)
This bill adds discretionary, non-exclusive considerations for
the court to weigh in each of the five existing fitness
criteria. None of the considerations proposed by this bill
appear to be inconsistent with the current criteria.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified8/10/15)
The Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Justice Strategy Group
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles
SB 382
Page 6
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Campaign for Youth Justice
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Children Now
Children's Defense Fund California
East Bay Children's Law Offices
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
National Center for Youth Law
National African American Drug Policy Coalition
National Employment Law Project
Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Post-Conviction Justice Project - USC Gould School of Law
Root and Rebound
Youth Justice Coalition
Youth Law Center
Policy Link
Several individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/10/15)
None Received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
Supporters state in part, "In our experience, there is
tremendous need for clarification of the fitness criteria. For
example, the fifth criterion - the gravity and circumstances of
the offense - is often misinterpreted to mean that any person
alleged to have committed a serious offense must be found unfit.
But that is not correct. In fact, even a young person who has
committed a serious offense should be retained in juvenile court
if he or she is capable of being rehabilitated, using the other
fitness criteria. There is tremendous need to clarify this in
SB 382
Page 7
the statutory criteria.
"Also, since the current fitness criteria were written, there is
much more useful guidance on the impact of immaturity and
adolescent development on behavior and capacity for change. A
series of Supreme Court cases, culminating in Miller v. Alabama
(2012) 567 U.S. ___, ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, has recognized the
importance of considering the hallmarks of youthfulness in
making decisions about young people. This includes issues such
as impulsivity, failure to appreciate risks and dangers, and
peer pressure. The Supreme Court cases also highlight the
transitory nature of adolescent delinquency - the fact that the
vast majority of young people leave delinquency behind as they
reach adulthood."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-15, 7/16/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Mayes, McCarty,
Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark
Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Dahle, Gallagher,
Harper, Jones, Kim, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Patterson,
Steinorth, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gordon, Gray, Melendez, Waldron
Prepared by:Alison Anderson / PUB. S. /
8/13/15 13:24:34
**** END ****
SB 382
Page 8