BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 813|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 813
Author: Leyva (D), et al.
Amended: 8/11/16
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/12/16
AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson, Glazer
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 33-0, 6/1/16
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Block, De León, Fuller,
Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg,
Hill, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire,
Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan,
Roth, Stone, Vidak, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Cannella, Hueso, Mendoza, Pavley,
Runner, Wieckowski
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/18/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Sex offenses: statute of limitations
SOURCE: California Womens Law Center
DIGEST: This bill eliminates any statute of limitations for
specified sex crimes.
Assembly Amendments add technical chaptering language to the
bill.
SB 813
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that the prosecution for a felony sex offense subject
to mandatory sex offender registration, as specified, must be
commenced within 10 years after commission of the offense.
(Penal Code § 801.1.)
2)Provides that the prosecution for inducing a minor to pose in
connection with the production of a representation of sexual
activity involving a minor, must be commenced within 10 years
of the date of production of the pornographic material.
(Penal Code § 801.2.)
3)Provides that in addition to the 10-year statute of
limitations applicable above, a criminal complaint to be filed
in specified child sex crime cases as follows:
a) If the crime is alleged to have been committed against a
person when that person was under the age of 18,
prosecution may commence any time up to the victim's 40thth
birthday (Penal Code § 801.1); or
b) Within one year of the date a person of any age reports
to a California law enforcement agency that he or she,
while under the age of 18 years, was a victim of a sex
crime, as specified, if all of the following occur:
i) The limitation period specified in Section 800, 801,
or 801.1, whichever is later, has expired;
ii) The crime involved
substantial sexual conduct, as specified, excluding
masturbation that is not mutual; and,
iii) There is independent evidence that corroborates the
victim's allegation. If the victim was 21 years of age
or older at the time of the report, the independent
evidence shall clearly and convincingly corroborate the
victim's allegation. (Penal Code § 803 (f).).
SB 813
Page 3
4)Provides that notwithstanding any other time limitation, a
criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date on
which the identity of the suspect is conclusively established
by DNA testing, if both of the following conditions are met:
a) The crime is one that is subject to mandatory sex
offender registration, as specified; and
b) The offense was committed prior to January 1, 2001, and
biological evidence collected in connection with the
offense is analyzed for DNA type no later than January 1,
2004, or the offense was committed on or after January 1,
2001, and biological evidence collected in connection with
the offense is analyzed for DNA type no later than two
years from the date of the offense. (Penal Code § 803
(g).)
This bill:
1)Amends Penal Code section 799 to provide that the prosecution
for the following felony sex crimes may be commenced at any
time:
a) rape;
b) spousal rape;
c) in concert rape, spousal rape or forcible sexual
penetration;
d) forcible sodomy;
e) molestation of a child under the age of 14 involving
"substantial sexual conduct;"
f) molestation of a child under the age of 14 by use of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and
unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person;
g) continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14;
h) forcible oral copulation; and
i) forcible sexual penetration.
2)Provides that its provisions apply "to crimes that were
committed on or after January 1, 2017, and to crimes for which
the statute of limitations that was in effect prior to January
1, 2017, has not run as of January 1, 2017."
SB 813
Page 4
3)Makes additional technical conforming amendments to related
statutes.
Background
The statute of limitations requires commencement of a
prosecution within a certain period of time after the commission
of a crime. California's statute of limitations law generally
provides four statutory "windows" for commencing prosecutions of
sex crimes:
The first window is the general limitations period for
prosecuting sex crimes, which is 10 years from when the crime
was committed. (Penal Code § 801.1 (b).)
The second window applies if the crime is alleged to have been
committed against a person when that person was under the age
of 18, in which case prosecution may commence any time up to
the victim's 40th birthday. (Penal Code § 801.1.).
A third window allows that when the 10-year limitations period
has lapsed, a criminal complaint may be filed within one year
of the date a person of any age reports to law enforcement
that they were a victim of a child sex crime, if a) the crime
involved "substantial sexual conduct", as specified; and b)
there is independent evidence that corroborates the victim's
allegation, which must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence if the victim is 21 years of age or older at the time
of the report. (Penal Code § 803 (f).)
A fourth window is available at all times: a criminal
complaint may be filed within one year of the date on which
the identity of a suspect is conclusively established by DNA
testing in sex crime cases if the DNA is analyzed in a timely
manner, as specified. (Penal Code § 803 (g).)
In 1984, the California Law Revision Commission (Commission)
published a series of recommendations to revise the statute of
limitations. The impetus for reform derived from numerous
changes made to the statute by the Legislature - there were 11
legislative enactments amending the felony statute of
limitations in 14 years. The Commission commented, "[t]his
simple scheme has been made complex by numerous modifications .
. . the result of this development is that the California law is
SB 813
Page 5
complex and filled with inconsistencies." The Commission
described the rationale of the statute:
The statute of limitations is simply a societal
declaration that it will no longer pursue a criminal
after a certain period of time. The period selected may
be somewhat arbitrary but still achieves society's
purpose of imposing an outside limit that recognizes the
staleness problem, that requires that crime must come to
light and be investigated within a reasonable time, and
that represents the point after which society declares
it no longer has an interest in prosecution and seeks
repose.
The three principal policy reasons for felony limitations
statutes include staleness, prompt investigation, and repose.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that statutes of
limitations are the primary guarantee against bringing overly
stale criminal charges. (United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S.
116, 122.) In Stogner v. California (2003) 123 S. Ct. 2446, the
Court underscored the basis for statutes of limitations:
Significantly, a statute of limitations reflects a
legislative judgment that, after a certain time, no
quantum of evidence is sufficient to convict. And that
judgment typically rests, in large part, upon
evidentiary concerns - for example, concern that the
passage of time has eroded memories or made witnesses or
other evidence unavailable. (Stogner, supra, 123 S. Ct.
at 2452 (citations omitted).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
New prison commitments: Potentially significant increase in
ongoing state costs (General Fund), cumulatively increasing in
future years, for new commitments to state prison that
otherwise would have been time-barred under the applicable
statute of limitations. Data from the California Department of
SB 813
Page 6
Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) indicates over 4,300
commitments to state prison in 2015 for the specified sex
crimes as a principal or subordinate offense. To the extent
prison commitments increase by even one-quarter of one percent
(10 individuals) in any one year would increase costs by
$300,000 for one year. Given the average length of stay in
excess of 10 years for many of these offenses, the cumulative
cost of 10 new commitments annually would be $13 million after
10 years.
Increase to parole and/or contracted bed space: Additionally,
in order to maintain compliance with the federal court-ordered
prison population cap, the CDCR could be required to release
more inmates onto parole, resulting in increased costs for
parole supervision (General Fund), or alternatively, contract
for additional bed space with local or private entities.
Courts: Potential near-term and ongoing increase in state
court costs (General Fund*) for additional criminal actions
initiated for cases that otherwise would have been
disqualified under the existing applicable statute of
limitations. A potential increase in the number of petitions
filed for writ of habeas corpus could potentially result from
new convictions for cases that otherwise would have been
time-barred from prosecution.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT: (Verified8/16/16)
California Women's Law Center (source)
Alameda County District Attorney
California Police Chiefs Association
Crime Victims United of California
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
National Council of Jewish Women/Los Angeles
Peace Officers Research Association of California
San Bernardino County District Attorney
Several individuals
SB 813
Page 7
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/16/2016)
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
The Law Office of the Public Defender in Sonoma County
Legal Services for prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
One individual
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author submits in part:
"In 1984, when the California Law Revision Commission last
discussed revisions to the statute of limitations, it
acknowledged that the time limits proposed for crimes, including
felony sex offenses, were "somewhat arbitrary." Sexual assault
is a notoriously under-reported and under-prosecuted form of
criminal victimization. This bill seeks to rid California law of
the arbitrary time limits imposed on the prosecution of certain
serious sexual offenses so that law enforcement and prosecutors
will have a better chance of being able to bring sexual
offenders to justice, giving more victims the opportunity to
have their day in court."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents submit in part:
"SB 813 does not address . . . core causes of under-prosecution
of sex crimes. Moreover, if SB 813 becomes law, these problems
may actually grow worse, with survivors coming forward after
many years of silence only to be faced with law enforcement
officers who may not believe them and prosecutors who say they
cannot proceed because there is not enough evidence to ethically
do so. Rather than expanding the statute of limitations, the
Legislature should be directing its attention towards
investigating and resolving the cases already languishing in
departments across the state and investing in comprehensive
services and tools for survivors and effective prevention
SB 813
Page 8
strategies."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/18/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, 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, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,
Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine,
Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell,
Olsen, Patterson, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Roger Hernández, Quirk
Prepared by:Alison Anderson / PUB. S. /
8/29/16 10:34:48
**** END ****