BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1134 (Leno) - Habeas corpus: new evidence: motion to vacate
judgment: indemnity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 18, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 18, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1134 would permit a writ of habeas corpus to be
prosecuted on the existence of "new evidence," as defined, that
is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and
of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely
than not changed the outcome at trial. This bill requires the
Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB) to
recommend payment without a hearing for incarceration of a
person if the court finds that the person is factually innocent.
Fiscal
Impact:
SB 1134 (Leno) Page 1 of
?
Courts : Potentially significant increase in new petitions for
writs of habeas corpus to be filed under the authority of the
bill. The Judicial Council has indicated potential costs in
the millions of dollars (General Fund*) to the trial courts,
Courts of Appeal, and Supreme Court to address the increase in
workload.
Payments for wrongful convictions : Potential future increase
in General Fund appropriations for payment of approved claims
for compensation potentially in the hundreds of thousands to
low millions of dollars in any one year. Annual costs would
vary based on the number of claims filed and the duration of
unlawful imprisonment specific to each individual. Since 2002,
17 claims have been paid totaling $8.1 million, ranging in
amount from $17,000 to $757,000. Five approved claims totaling
about $1.2 million are pending Legislative approval. The
average compensation amount for the 22 claims is $420,000.
Attorney General (AG) : Potentially significant increase in
workload (General Fund) to the extent a greater number of
persons are allowed to prosecute writs of habeas corpus under
the existence of new evidence, as redefined. Resources could
potentially be required for post-verdict investigations, to
litigate retrials, appeals, and collateral challenges.
VCGCB : No significant workload impact to the Board. Potential
increases in the number of claims submitted for review are
estimated to be offset in whole or in part by the reduced
workload resulting from potentially fewer required hearings in
order to recommend an appropriation for claims prospectively.
State prisons : Potential future cost savings (General Fund)
in averted incarceration of an unknown, but potentially
significant amount to the extent future writs of habeas corpus
are granted that otherwise would not have been eligible to be
filed.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
Background: Existing law provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned
or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense, may
prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of
SB 1134 (Leno) Page 2 of
?
his or her imprisonment or restraint. (Penal Code (PC) §
1473(a).)
Existing law states that a writ of habeas corpus may be
prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:
False evidence that is substantially material or probative on
the issue of guilt, or punishment was introduced against a
person at any hearing or trial relating to his or her
incarceration.
False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual,
material or probative on the issue of guilt, which was known
by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty and
which was a material factor directly related to the plea of
guilty by the person. (PC § 1473(b).)
Existing law provides that in a contested proceeding, if a court
grants a writ of habeas corpus concerning a person who is
unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, or when the court vacates a
judgment on the basis of new evidence concerning a person who is
no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, and if the court
finds that the new evidence on the petition points unerringly to
innocence, that finding shall be binding on the Victim
Compensation and Government Claims Board for a claim presented
to the Board, and upon application by the person, the Board
shall, without a hearing, recommend to the Legislature that an
appropriation be made and the claim paid. (PC § 1485.55(a).)
Under existing law, if the court grants a writ of habeas corpus
concerning a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained
on any ground other than new evidence that points unerringly to
innocence or actual innocence, the petitioner may move for a
finding of innocence by a preponderance of the evidence that the
crime with which he or she was charged was either not committed
at all or, if committed, was not committed by him or her. (PC §
1485.55(b).)
Under existing law, if a court vacates a judgment pursuant to PC
§ 1473.6 on any ground other than new evidence that points
unerringly to innocence or actual innocence, the petitioner may
move for a finding of innocence by a preponderance of the
evidence that the crime with which he or she was charged was
either not committed at all or, if committed, was not committed
by him or her. (PC 1485.55(c).)
Existing law provides that "new evidence" means evidence that
SB 1134 (Leno) Page 3 of
?
was not available or known at the time of trial that completely
undermines the prosecution case and points unerringly to
innocence. (PC § 1485.55(g).)
Under current law, any person no longer unlawfully imprisoned or
restrained may prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment for newly
discovered evidence, as specified. Existing law states that the
procedure for bringing and adjudicating a motion to vacate
judgment, including the burden of producing evidence and the
burden of proof, shall be the same as for prosecuting a writ of
habeas corpus. (PC § 1473.6.)
Proposed Law:
This bill would authorize a writ of habeas corpus to be
prosecuted on the grounds of the existence of new evidence that
is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and
of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely
than not changed the outcome at trial. Specifically, this bill:
Defines "new evidence" as evidence that has been
discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered
prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is
admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative,
collateral, or impeaching.
Revises the standard for a court finding in order to
require VCGCB to recommend a claim be paid without a
hearing from a finding that "new evidence on the petition
points unerringly to innocence" to a court finding "that
the person is factually innocent."
Makes other conforming and technical changes.
Prior
Legislation: SB 694 (Leno) 2015 was identical to this measure.
SB 694 was held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee
on Appropriations.
SB 635 (Nielsen) Chapter 422/2015 raises the compensation for
innocent persons who were wrongly convicted from $100 to $140
per day of incarceration served, as specified, and expands the
scope of a compensable injury to include non-pecuniary injuries,
as specified.
SB 1134 (Leno) Page 4 of
?
SB 1058 (Leno) Chapter 623/2013 allows a writ of habeas corpus
when evidence given at trial has subsequently been repudiated by
the expert that testified or undermined by later scientific
research or technological advances.
SB 618 (Leno) Chapter 800/2013 streamlined and provided clarity
to the process for compensating persons who have been exonerated
after serving time incarcerated.
Staff
Comments: By lowering the standard of review for habeas corpus
petitions alleging new evidence from evidence that would
"undermine the entire prosecution case and point unerringly to
innocence," to the existence of evidence "that is credible,
material, and of such decisive force and value that it would
have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial," this
bill could result in an increase in habeas corpus petition
filings with the courts. The Judicial Council has indicated
potential costs for increased filings of habeas corpus petitions
of $7.5 million assuming a 15 percent increase in habeas corpus
petition filings at the trial court, Courts of Appeal, and
Supreme Court level. Actual costs would be proportionally higher
or lower based on the percentage increase in filings experienced
by each of the courts. To the extent the new filings result in
orders to show cause, the Judicial Council has indicated
additional costs in excess of $5 million assuming 10 percent of
the estimated 15 percent increase in habeas corpus petitions
received such orders.
By increasing the number of petitions eligible to be filed, this
measure could subsequently result in the courts granting
additional writs of habeas corpus and motions to vacate
judgment. As a result, payments from the General Fund to
compensate individuals for wrongful incarceration could
potentially increase. While it is unknown how many cases this
bill will impact, costs could range potentially in the hundreds
of thousands to low millions of dollars in any one year. Annual
costs would vary based on the number of claims filed and the
duration of unlawful imprisonment specific to each individual.
Since 2002, 17 claims have been paid totaling $8.1 million,
ranging in amount from $17,000 to $757,000. Five approved claims
totaling about $1.2 million are pending Legislative approval.
The average compensation amount for the 22 claims is $420,000.
SB 1134 (Leno) Page 5 of
?
The AG has indicated the provisions of this bill could result in
an unquantifiable but potentially significant workload impact
that could require increased staffing. The additional need for
resources for post-verdict investigations and to litigate
retrials, appeals and collateral challenges is unknown, but
could be significant.
-- END --