BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 220
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 220 (Public Safety)
          As Introduced February 3, 2005
          Majority vote 

           PUBLIC SAFETY       6-0         JUDICIARY           7-1         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Leno, Cohn, Dymally,      |Ayes:|Jones, Harman, Evans,     |
          |     |Goldberg, Hancock,        |     |Laird, Levine, Lieber,    |
          |     |Spitzer                   |     |Monta?ez                  |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |Nays:|Haynes                    |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Changes references in various code sections from  
          "battered woman's syndrome" (BWS) to "intimate partner battering  
          and its effects" (IPB).

           EXISTING LAW  provides that:  

          1)A writ of habeas corpus may be sought on the basis that  
            evidence relating to IPB, as defined, was not introduced at  
            the trial court proceedings relating to the prisoner's  
            incarceration for a homicide conviction; and was of such  
            substance that had it been received in evidence, there is a  
            reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in  
            the judgment of conviction, that the result of the proceedings  
            would have been different. 

          2)Provisions of law that authorize a writ of habeas corpus based  
            on IPB shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2010.  

          3)In a criminal action, expert testimony is admissible by either  
            the prosecution or defense regarding IPB, including the nature  
            and effect of physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the  
            beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic  
            violence, except when offered against a defendant to prove the  
            occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis of  
            a criminal charge. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None









                                                                  AB 220
                                                                  Page  2


           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, "SB 1385 (Burton), Chapter  
          609, Statutes of 2004, provides that the language in Evidence  
          Code Section 1107 will change from allowing expert testimony  
          regarding 'BWS' to allowing expert testimony regarding 'IPB and  
          its effects'.  This change reflects the statewide and national  
          trend of replacing the limited term 'BWS' with the more accurate  
          'IPB and its effects', which more fully describes the breadth  
          and depth of current understandings of domestic violence.  This  
          bill is clean-up legislation to SB 1385, and changes the  
          remaining statutory references in the code to 'BWS' to 'IPB and  
          its effects'.  

          "Many researchers, advocates, and experts on domestic violence  
          have developed critiques about how the term 'BWS' is not helpful  
          to survivors of battering, including the term 'BWS' pathologizes  
          survivors of abuse; focuses on survivors' behaviors and  
          psychological responses, rather than on the batterer's abuse;  
          assumes all survivors experience and respond to battering in the  
          same way; excludes same-sex battering and male victims of abuse;  
          perpetuates harmful stereotypes about survivors as passive and  
          helpless; can be confused with a mental defect/insanity defense,  
          which contradicts arguments that survivors of battering react  
          reasonably to the abuse; and contributes to the myth of a  
          separate "BWS" defense, among other critiques.  

          "This bill would not substantively alter the intent or content  
          of the law affected.  Rather, this bill simply ensures that all  
          sections of the California Code reflect the changes found in  
          updated Evidence Code Section 1107.  Sections affected include  
          Penal Code Sections 4801, 5075.5, and 13823.93 and Code of Civil  
          Procedure Sections 3030 and 340.3.  

          "Consistency of language throughout the California Code will  
          help shift public discourse away from the outdated language  
          regarding 'BWS' toward the more current and accurate 'IPB and  
          its effects'.  This bill requires minimal or no financial cost."

          Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of  
          this bill.
           

          Analysis Prepared by :    Heather Hopkins / PUB. S. / (916)  
          319-3744 









                                                                  AB 220
                                                                  Page  3



                                                                FN: 0009594