BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
3
3
SB 1338 (Harman) 8
As Introduced February 19, 2010
Hearing date: April 20, 2010
Penal Code
JM:mc
GRAND THEFT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS:
METHOD OF DETERMINING VALUE
HISTORY
Source: Tulare County District Attorney
Prior Legislation: None directly on point
Support: California Chamber of Commerce; California Peace
Officers' Association;
California Police Chiefs Association
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
IN A GRAND THEFT PROSECUTION, SHOULD THE VALUE OF SPECIFIED
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BE DETERMINED BY THE WHOLESALE VALUE OF SUCH
PRODUCTS ON THE DATE OF THE THEFT, AS IS THE CASE IN EXISTING LAW
FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF AVOCADOS AND CITRUS FRUITS?
(More)
SB 1338 (Harman)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that in a grand theft
prosecution, the value of specified agricultural products shall
be determined as the wholesale value of the products on the day
of the theft, just as the value of citrus fruits and avocados
are determined under existing law.
Existing law provides that theft occurs where a person does any
of the following:
Steals, takes ? or drives away the personal property of
another;
Fraudulently appropriates property which has been
entrusted to him or her;
Knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent
representation or pretense, defrauds another person of
money, labor or personal or real property;
Causes or procures others to report falsely of his or
her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing
upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently
gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains
the labor or service of another. (Penal Code 484.)
Existing law (Penal Code 487) generally provides that theft is
a misdemeanor where the value of the property, labor or services
involved in the theft does not exceed $400. Theft is grand
theft - an alternate felony-misdemeanor - where the value of the
property, labor, or services involved in the theft exceeds $400.
Existing law provides that the defendant committed grand theft
where he or she took the property of the following specified
kinds or value, or under the following circumstances:
Domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous
fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or
other farm crops are taken of a value exceeding two hundred
fifty dollars ($250).
(More)
SB 1338 (Harman)
PageC
Fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp, algae, or
other aquacultural products are taken from a commercial or
research operation which is producing that product, of a
value exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
Money, labor, or real or personal property is taken by a
servant, agent, or employee from his or her principal or
employer and aggregates nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)
or more in any 12 consecutive month period.
The property was taken from the person of another.
The property taken was any of the following: An
automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any
caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow,
boar, gilt, barrow, or pig.
The property taken was a firearm. (Penal Code 487.)
Existing law provides that the value of stolen property in a
grand theft prosecution is generally determined by the
"reasonable and fair market value" of the property at the time
and place of the theft. (2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Crim. Law (3d
Ed.2000) Crimes against Prop. 8.)
Existing law specifically provides the following as to
determining the value of avocados or citrus fruits: The value
[of these products] may be shown by the ? evidence which
establishes that on the day of the theft avocados or citrus
fruit of the same variety and weight exceeded two hundred fifty
dollars ($250) in wholesale value.
This bill provides that the value of other agricultural products
-- domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous fruits,
other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops
-- shall also be determined as the wholesale value of the
products on the day of the theft.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
(More)
SB 1338 (Harman)
PageD
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
(More)
SB 1338 (Harman)
PageE
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The
state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger
almost three years ago continues to this day,
California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and
inmates in the California prison system continue to
languish without constitutionally adequate medical and
mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
As stated by the author:
SB 1338 will provide consistency to Penal Code section
487 in regards to theft of agricultural commodities.
The measure is sponsored by the Tulare County District
Attorney's Office
Previously, the section referred only to avocados or
citrus fruit and there was ambiguity as to whether the
section applied to other types of stolen agricultural
products, making it difficult to award restitution to
the victim in those cases.
SB 1338 will assure that victims receive fair
restitution by guaranteeing that the method used to
determine the value of their stolen property is
clearly stated and applicable to all varieties of
crops.
2. General Rules for Determining the Value of Stolen Property and
Special Rules for Agricultural Products - Policy Issues
As noted in the "Purpose" section above, the value of stolen
goods is generally calculated as the fair market value of
property at the place and time the property is taken. It
appears that the special grand theft values that apply to theft
of agricultural products are intended to apply to products taken
from farms and through wholesale distribution. In particular,
existing law specifically refers to the "wholesale value" of
avocados and citrus fruits. (Penal Code 487, subd.
(b)(1)(B).) The grand theft statute also refers to theft of
"farm crops." (Penal Code 487, subd. (b)(1)(A).) It should
also be noted in this regard that the paragraph defining grand
theft of aquacultural products refers to theft of such products
from "a commercial or research operation." (Penal Code 487,
(More)
SB 1338 (Harman)
PageG
subd. (b)(1)(2).) A commercial or research operation would
appear to exclude a grocery store or similar shop.
Once avocados, citrus fruits, nuts and other food products are
offered for sale at a retail establishment, there is no reason
to distinguish these products from any other retail good. While
it may be relatively easy to steal agricultural products from
isolated rural fields, barns and storehouses, no such
considerations apply to food products in grocery stores and
other retail businesses.
FOR PURPOSES OF THE GRAND THEFT STATUTE, SHOULD THE VALUE
OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BE CLEARLY STATED TO BE THE
WHOLESALE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS AT THE DATE AND TIME OF THE
THEFT?
3. Restitution Issues
The author notes that the purpose of this bill is to assist
victims of agricultural theft in obtaining restitution for their
losses. The California Constitution and statutory law give
crime victims the right to restitution for economic losses.
(Ca. Const. Art. 1 28(b) Penal Code 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).)
Restitution ensures that amends . . . be made to society for the
breach of the law, enables people who suffer loss as a result of
criminal activity [to] be compensated for those losses, and acts
as a deterrent to future criminality . . . and to rehabilitate
the criminal." (People v. Crow (1993) 6 Cal.4th 952, 958,
internal quotation marks omitted.) As such, courts have broad
discretion to determine restitution and make restitution orders.
(People v. Baker (1005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 468; People v.
Prosser (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 682, 690.)
Arguably, this bill could provide relative certainty for courts
in determining the amount of restitution to be granted a victim.
Setting an explicit standard for restitution in agricultural
theft cases could streamline the applicable process and allow a
victim to concentrate his or her efforts on collecting the
restitution ordered by the court.
SB 1338 (Harman)
PageH
WOULD EXPLICITLY STATING IN STATUTE THAT THE VALUE OF STOLEN
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IS THE WHOLESALE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS AT
THE DATE AND PLACE OF THE THEFT ASSIST IN DETERMINING THE
RESTITUTION TO WHICH A VICTIM IS ENTITLED?
***************