BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 114|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 114
Author: Cohn (D), et al.
Amended: 7/13/05 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/14/05
AYES: Alquist, Poochigian, Cedillo, Margett, Romero
NO VOTE RECORDED: Migden, Perata
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 61-6, 5/5/05 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Child abuse
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill allows evidence of a defendants prior
acts of child abuse, as defined, in criminal cases
involving physical child abuse, subject to an evidentiary
hearing.
ANALYSIS : Current law provides that a court may in its
discretion exclude evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the probability that its
admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or
create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the
issues, or misleading the jury.
Current law provides that, with certain exceptions,
CONTINUED
AB 114
Page
2
evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her
character, whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of
reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her
conduct, is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her
conduct on a specified occasion.
This bill provides that when a defendant is accused of an
offense involving child abuse, evidence of the defendant's
prior commission of child abuse may be admitted to prove
the present child abuse charge(s) against the defendant
subject to a hearing conducted pursuant to Section 352,
which shall include consideration of any corroboration and
remoteness in time.
This bill defines "child abuse" for purposes of this
section to mean an act prescribed by Section 273d of the
Penal Code which constitutes corporal punishment as injury
to a child.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/13/05)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers' Association
California Sexual Assault Investigators' Association
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County
Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social Services Inc.
Glendale YWCA Domestic Violence Program
Junior Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee
Lambda Letters Project
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Office of the San Bernardino County Sheriff
Peace Officers Research Association of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/13/05)
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
CONTINUED
AB 114
Page
3
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office states that, "Under AB 114, evidence of
prior acts of domestic violence may only be introduced if
the accused was the natural or adopted parent of the child.
If the defendant is the boyfriend of the mother or the
child's step-parent, the evidence could not come in against
the defendant. This would eliminate quite a large class of
cases. It would be preferable to expand the eligible
population of defendants to include anyone who has care or
custody of any child. This would be consistent with the
language in Penal Code 273a. Another option is the
language from Penal Code Section 288.5 that includes 'any
person who either resides in the same house with the minor
child or has recurring access to the child.'"
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Public Defenders
Association states that, "Established jurisprudence [see
People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, People v. Harris
(1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727] requires a high degree of
similarity between the prior act and the current accusation
to overcome the general rule prohibiting the admission of
prior bad acts to prove current conduct. Under current
law, with very rare exceptions propensity evidence is
generally excluded in criminal trials. This general rule
is based on concern for the prejudicial effect admission of
such evidence is likely to have on a jury - basically that
admission of such evidence may distract jurors from the
issue of whether the defendant engaged in the conduct with
which he is actually charged. Propensity evidence
increases the risk that an innocent defendant may be
convicted, not on the underlying circumstances of the case,
but rather because the jury believes the defendant is
guilty based on prior actions."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Bass, Benoit, Berg,
Bermudez, Blakeslee, Bogh, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan,
Chavez, Cogdill, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre,
DeVore, Emmerson, Evans, Frommer, Garcia, Harman, Shirley
Horton, Houston, Huff, Karnette, Keene, Klehs, Koretz, La
Malfa, La Suer, Lieber, Matthews, McCarthy, Montanez,
Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nation, Nava, Negrete
McLeod, Niello, Oropeza, Parra, Pavley, Plescia, Richman,
CONTINUED
AB 114
Page
4
Ridley-Thomas, Saldana, Salinas, Spitzer, Strickland,
Torrico, Tran, Umberg, Vargas, Villines, Walters, Wyland
NOES: Goldberg, Jones, Laird, Leno, Ruskin, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu, Dymally, Gordon, Hancock, Haynes,
Jerome Horton, Leslie, Levine, Liu, Maze, Sharon Runner,
Wolk, Nunez
RJG:nl 7/19/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED