BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1295
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1295
(Nielsen) - As Amended June 27, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes the use of documentary evidence for
purposes of satisfying the criteria used to evaluate whether a
prisoner released on parole is required to be treated by the
Department of State Hospitals (DHS) as a mentally disordered
offender (MDO). It also states that the details underlying the
commission of the offense that led to the conviction, including
the use of force or violence, causing serious bodily injury, or
the threat to use force or violence likely to produce
substantial physical harm, may be shown by documentary evidence,
including, but not limited to, evaluations by the DHS.
SB 1295
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Potential future trial court cost savings (General Fund) to
the extent the admissibility of documentary evidence reduces
the amount of time spent in trial, including the number and
complexity of appeals to decide evidentiary issues.
2)Minor, if any, fiscal impact to the Board of Parole Hearings
(BPH) and its existing MDO process.
3)Minor fiscal impact, if any on DHS.
COMMENTS:
Purpose and Background. This bill is in response to the
California Supreme Court case People v. Stevens (2015) 64
Cal.4th 325. In Stevens, the prosecution attempted to prove the
underlying conviction through the expert testimony of a
psychologist. The Court held that: 1) the state may not prove
the facts underlying the commitment offense through a mental
health expert's opinion; and 2) mental health experts may not
testify about a topic that is not sufficiently beyond common
experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier
of fact. However, the Court noted that the Legislature is free
to create a hearsay exception, as it had done in Sexually
Violent Predator (SVP) law.
Similar to the list of qualifying crimes in MDO law, SVP law
also has a list of qualifying crimes. As the Stevens court
SB 1295
Page 3
noted, current SVP law has a hearsay exception authorizing the
use of documentary evidence. The relevant SVP law states:
"Conviction of one or more of the crimes enumerated in this
section shall constitute evidence that may support a court or
jury determination that a person is a sexually violent
predator, but shall not be the sole basis for the
determination. The existence of any prior [sexually violent]
convictions may be shown with documentary evidence. The
details underlying the commission of an offense that led to a
prior conviction, including a predatory relationship with the
victim, may be shown by documentary evidence, including, but
not limited to, preliminary hearing transcripts, trial
transcripts, probation and sentencing reports, and evaluations
by the State Department of State Hospitals."
The proposed MDO language in this bill mirrors SVP law, which is
appropriate given that courts often compare the two areas of the
law.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 1295
Page 4