BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1134
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1134 (Leno and Anderson)
As Amended August 1, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Public Safety |7-0 |Jones-Sawyer, | |
| | |Melendez, Lackey, | |
| | |Lopez, Low, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood, | |
| | |McCarty | |
| | | | |
SB 1134
Page 2
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the
ground that new evidence exists 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:
1)Defines, for purposes of this bill, "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", and deletes the
existing definition of "new evidence."
2)Clarifies that the binding nature of the court's credibility
determinations on the Attorney General (AG) and the California
Victim Compensation Board is true in both contested and
uncontested proceedings.
3)States that, in a contested proceeding, if the court has
granted a writ of habeas corpus and found the person to be
factually innocent, that finding shall be binding on the
California Victim Compensation 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.
4)Provides that in a contested or uncontested proceeding, if the
court grants a writ of habeas corpus and did not find the
person factually innocent in the habeas corpus proceedings,
the petitioner may move for a finding of innocence by a
preponderance of the evidence that the crime with which he or
SB 1134
Page 3
she was charged was either not committed at all, or if
committed, was not by him or her.
EXISTING LAW:
1)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 such
imprisonment or restraint.
2)Specifies that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for,
but not limited to, the following reasons:
a) False evidence that is substantially material or
probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was
introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating
to his or her incarceration; or,
b) False physical evidence, believed by a person to be
factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt,
which was known by the person at the time of entering a
plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly
related to the plea of guilty by the person.
3)States that any allegation that the prosecution knew or should
have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to the
above provisions is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of
SB 1134
Page 4
habeas corpus.
4)States that the express factual findings made by the court,
including credibility determinations, in considering a
petition for a habeas corpus, a motion to vacate or an
application for a certificate of factual innocence shall be
binding on the AG, the factfinder, and the Victim Compensation
and Government Claims Board (VCGCB).
5)Provides that in a contested proceeding, if a court grants a
writ of habeas corpus concerning a person who is unlawfully
imprisoned or restrained, 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 VCGCB 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.
6)States that 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 evidence that the
crime with which he or she was charged was either not
committed at all, or if committed, was not by him or her.
7)Defines "new evidence" to mean "evidence that is not available
or known at the time of trial that completely undermines the
prosecution case and points unerringly to innocence."
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
SB 1134
Page 5
1)Potential significant costs in the millions (General Fund (GF)
and Trial Court Trust Fund) to Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, and Trial Courts during the first two or three years.
Although this bill specifies the "new evidence" must be
evidence that was not available at the time of the trial,
staff of the various courts will have to review the record and
make that determination. Writs may be submitted to all three
courts; and the higher the court, the higher the level of
review. Denial by a lower court is subject to either appeal,
or to the filing of an original petition at the next higher
court, (or both). The Judicial Council estimates a large
volume of new writs during the first two or three years after
enactment, but a leveling off thereafter.
2)Potential future increase in GF appropriations to VCGCB 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. Administration cost to
VCGCB would be minor.
3)Potentially significant annual cost (GF) to the Department of
Justice due to increases in workload 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.
SB 1134
Page 6
4)Potential future annual cost savings (GF) to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation due to averted
incarceration of innocent persons to the extent future writs
of habeas corpus are granted that otherwise would not have
been eligible to be filed and innocence is established.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Under existing California
law, an inmate who has been convicted of committing a crime for
which he or she claims that s/he has new evidence that points to
innocence may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The
burden for proving that newly discovered evidence entitles an
individual to a new trial is not currently defined by statute,
but has evolved from appellate court opinions. In order to
prevail on a new evidence claim, a petitioner must undermine the
prosecution's entire case and 'point unerringly to innocence
with evidence no reasonable jury could reject' (In re Lawley
(2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1239). The California Supreme Court has
stated that this standard is very high, much higher than the
preponderance of the evidence standard that governs other habeas
claims. (Ibid.)
"This standard is nearly impossible to meet absent DNA evidence,
which exists only in a tiny portion of prosecutions and
exonerations. For example, if a petitioner has newly discovered
evidence that completely undermines all evidence of guilt and
shows that the original jury would likely not have convicted,
but the new evidence does not 'point unerringly to innocence'
the petitioner will not have met the standard and will have no
chance at a new trial. Thus, someone who would likely never
have been convicted if the newly discovered evidence had been
available in their original trial is almost guaranteed to remain
in prison under the status quo in California.
"The proposed new standard in SB 1134 addresses this anomaly.
Our criminal justice system was built on the understanding that
even innocent people cannot always affirmatively prove
SB 1134
Page 7
innocence, which is why the burden is on the prosecution to
prove guilt when a charge is brought to trial, and absent
evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence is
presumed. The new standard contained in this bill ensures that
innocent men and women do not remain in prison even after new
evidence shows that a conviction never would have occurred had
it been available.
"SB 1134 seeks to bring California's innocence standard into
line with the vast majority of other states' standards,
forty-three in total, and to make it consistent with other
postconviction standards for relief such as ineffective
assistance of counsel, or prosecutorial misconduct. There is no
justification for a different standard to govern these types of
claims, as opposed to those brought on the basis of newly
discovered evidence. Our laws must recognize that if evidence
exists that a jury did not hear (regardless of whether it is the
fault of a mistaken or lying witness, an ineffective attorney,
or the misconduct of law enforcement), which creates a
reasonable probability of a different outcome, the conviction
should be reversed."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN:
0003999
SB 1134
Page 8