BILL ANALYSIS
SB 669
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 669 (Hollingsworth)
As Amended May 5, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :38-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Arambula, Hagman, | | |
| |Ammiano, Furutani, | | |
| |Gilmore, Hill, Ma | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides that, in a trial to determine whether or not a
person is still a sexually violent predator (SVP), the court
shall instruct the jury that failure to participate in or
complete the prescribed sex offender treatment may be considered
evidence that a person's condition has not changed.
Specifically, this bill :
1)States that where the SVP's failure to participate in or
complete treatment is relied upon as proof that the person's
condition has not changed, and there is evidence to support
that reliance, the jury shall be instructed.
2)Provides that the jury shall be instructed as follows: "[T]he
committed person's failure to participate in or complete the
State Department of Mental Health Sex Offender Commitment
Program (SOCP) are facts that, if proved, may be considered as
evidence that the committed person's condition has not
changed. The weight to be given that evidence is a matter for
the jury to determine."
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines a "sexually violent predator" as an inmate who has
been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or
more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that
makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others
in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually
violent criminal behavior.
SB 669
Page 2
2)Defines a "diagnosed mental disorder" as one that includes "a
congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or
volitional capacity that predisposes the person to the
commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting
the person a menace to the health and safety of others."
3)Provides that a SVP patient can, with the concurrence of the
Director of the Department of Mental Health (DMH), petition
for unconditional release if the patient "no longer meets the
definition of a SVP," or for conditional release. (WIC
Section 6605.) The provisions of WIC Section 6605 describe
procedures only for trial of the issue of whether the patient
should be unconditionally released. The section does not
describe procedures for determination of the issue of
conditional release. If the court finds probable cause that
the person is no longer a danger to others, the State must
prove in a jury trial that the person is still a SVP.
4)Provides that a SVP patient can, without the concurrence of
DMH, petition for conditional release. Unless the court finds
the petition to be frivolous, the SVP may seek to establish
that he or she can be released into the community under
supervision.
5)Provides that if DMH determines that a committed person is no
longer a SVP, DMH "shall seek judicial review of the person's
commitment" through a habeas corpus procedure described in WIC
Section 7250.
6)Provides that if the court in a specified habeas corpus
proceeding (which can be filed by DMH, the committed person,
or a relative or friend on behalf of the person) finds that
the person is no longer a SVP, the person shall be
unconditionally discharged.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : According to the author, "The Sexually Violent
Predator Act went into effect on January 1, 1996. These
statutes established a new category of civil commitment for
persons classified as Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs). In
establishing the SVP Act, the California Legislature declared
that there is a small group of extremely dangerous offenders
with diagnosed mental disorders that can be readily identified
SB 669
Page 3
while incarcerated. It further declared that these individuals
are not safe to reside at-large in the community and represent a
danger to the health and safety of others if they are released.
It was the intent of the Legislature that individuals classified
as SVPs be confined and treated until they no longer present a
threat to society. The SVP law has been amended several times
since it was enacted. Current law defines a SVP as a person who
has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or
more victims and provides for an indeterminate commitment.
Currently there are roughly 768 SVPs in state mental facilities.
Completion of a treatment program is not currently a condition
of release under state law. In fact, a vast majority of
adjudicated SVPs refuse treatment while in a state hospital.
According to the Department of Mental Health, 70% of SVPs are
currently refusing treatment. Under this bill, a SVP's refusal
to engage in treatment may be considered evidence that his or
her condition has not changed. Recent amendments taken in
Senate Public Safety seek to clarify jury instruction in these
cases."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0001733