BILL ANALYSIS AB 2068 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 2068 (Richter) As Amended April 18, 1996 2/3 vote. Urgency JUDICIARY 15-0 SUMMARY: Changes the hearsay rule to permit diaries and other statements by victims to be more readily accepted as evidence in court. Specifically, this bill establishes a new exception to the hearsay rule for a statement which relates the victim's perceptions if the statement passes all of the following five tests: 1) The statement describes or explains an incident or condition. 2) The incident involves a threat or actual physical harm to the victim by the accused. 3) The witness is unavailable. 4) Circumstances surrounding the statement must not indicate a lack of trustworthiness. 5) The proponent has given the evidence of the statement to the other side in a timely way. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown EXISTING LAW: Establishes rules of evidence, governed in part by statute, and in part by constitutional requirements, as follows: 1) Permits a court to accept evidence of an out-of-court statement as proof of the facts stated if one of 14 general exceptions to the "hearsay rule" is applicable. Exceptions to the hearsay rule include: prior statements of a witness; spontaneous, contemporaneous or dying declarations; and statement of mental or physical state. 2) Defines "statement" to include oral or written verbal expression or nonverbal conduct intended as a substitute for verbal expression. 3) Provides that a statement of the victim's state of mind, motive or feeling is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered to prove the victim's state of mind when it is itself an issue, or when the statement explains the victim's conduct. Excludes such evidence if the accused's conduct is in issue rather than that of the victim (as in most domestic violence cases). 4) Excludes some otherwise admissible hearsay evidence in criminal AB 2068 Page 2 cases if the defendant is unable to confront and cross examine the hearsay declarant. 5) Excludes an out-of-court statement that qualifies under an exception to the hearsay rule if the declarant had no personal knowledge of the subject matter, or if the statement is irrelevant, or if a privilege has been invoked or if the statement contains inadmissible opinion. The court may also exclude evidence which is unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or time consuming. BACKGROUND: The primary reason for excluding hearsay is that out-of-court statements are considered unreliable because they cannot be cross-examined. The courts have held that the right of confrontation in a criminal case is usually satisfied if the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at a prior judicial hearing, but normally only if the witness is unavailable. Where the victim is available to testify, the cases generally require live testimony. Where the victim is unavailable, the cases search for indicia of reliability before permitting hearsay. The courts state that it is error to admit hearsay statements of a victim who has expressed fear of the defendant unless the defense has raised some issue about the victim's conduct which is explained by the expression of fear. In the Nicole Brown Simpson case, the court refused to admit seven hearsay statements by the victim (one of which was a diary entry). However, the court did admit nine hearsay statements which were corroborated by the observation of witnesses, and which tended to prove the violent nature of the Simpson relationship, as well as identity, intent and motive. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to material provided by the author, the fact that very credible evidence of a defendant's motive for murder cannot be admitted into evidence is a nail in the coffin for the credibility of the courts. Nicole Brown Simpson made statements in her diaries and to friends in order to tell the world who her possible future murderer might be. She probably did not know that an archaic legal rule would keep a jury from hearing this relevant evidence. It is reasonable to allow use of such evidence where a defendant has admitted charges, or entered a no contest plea to charges of physically abusing the victim, because the admission gives the victim's statements an indicia of trustworthiness that at least should be able to make statements with knowledge that if sufficiently corroborated, they will not be kept from juries trying to discover the truth about possible future murders. Most importantly, the public deserves courts that operate in a manner commensurate with the common sense possessed by the majority of AB 2068 Page 3 the public. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice state that evidence of prior incidents can be enormously prejudicial. Presented with evidence of a prior assault by a defendant, a jury may be inclined to convict in order to punish the defendant for these previous acts. Allowing this kind of evidence without the opportunity for cross-examination of the declarant, which may reveal critical information regarding the incident, will allow juries to base their verdicts on unreliable and incomplete information. Analysis prepared by: Stephen Birdlebough / ajud / 445-4560 FN 022892