BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Dave Cox, Chair
BILL NO: SB 1356 HEARING: 4/7/10
AUTHOR: Denham FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/5/10 CONSULTANT:
Weinberger
HOMICIDE TRIAL REIMBURSEMENT
Background and Existing Law
To promote the uniform administration of justice, avoid
delays in the prosecution and conduct of homicide trials,
and prevent counties' finances from being impaired by
homicide trial costs, counties can be reimbursed from the
State General Fund for costs they incur in bringing to
trial individuals charged with homicide (AB 1329, Davis,
1961).
Counties may apply to the State Controller's Office (SCO)
for reimbursement of homicide investigation and trial costs
that exceed the amount of money that would be derived by a
tax of 0.0125 of 1% of the full value of assessed property
in the county (AB 2866, Migden, 2000). Until January 1,
2005, the Migden bill provided for reimbursement of a
portion of counties' homicide trial costs under formulas
that varied based on a county's population, the assessed
value of property within the county, and the number of
homicide trials conducted during a fiscal year.
Once a county auditor determines that the costs of a
homicide trial have met the statutory cost threshold, the
auditor applies to the State Controller for reimbursement.
Reimbursable costs include costs incurred by the county
above normal salaries and expenses for district attorney
investigation and prosecution, sheriff department
investigations, public defender or court-appointed counsel
investigation and defense, and other costs such as witness
fees and expenses.
During the ten years before 2005, when the current
statutory formula for homicide trial reimbursement took
effect, the Legislature granted about 15 exemptions to the
reimbursement formulas, providing counties with 100%
reimbursement for costs related to the specific homicide
cases. Legislators also rejected a number of other bills
SB 1356 -- 4/5/10 -- Page 2
to provide 100% reimbursement to counties for the costs of
specific homicide cases.
Arguing that homicide trials in which the victim is a law
enforcement officer generate extraordinary costs, county
officials want the state to exempt all such trials from the
statutory reimbursement formula.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 1356 exempts a county that is responsible for
the cost of a trial or trials or any hearing of a person
for the offense of homicide, in which the homicide victim
was a peace officer, from having to comply with any
statutory cost threshold when applying to the State
Controller for reimbursement.
SB 1356 specifies that this exemption applies to a trial or
trials or any hearing of a person for the offense of
homicide if the victim of the homicide was a peace officer
who was killed while engaged in the course of the
performance of his or her official duties, or in
retaliation for the performance of his or her official
duties, as defined in statute.
The bill also authorizes a city located in a county that is
responsible for the cost of a trial or trials or any
hearing of a person for the offense of homicide to apply to
the Controller for reimbursement of investigative costs
incurred by the city that are attributable to that trial,
trials, or hearing, if the victim of the homicide was a
peace officer who was killed while engaged in the course of
the performance of his or her official duties, or in
retaliation for the performance of his or her official
duties, as defined in statute.
Comments
1. Vital assistance for local budgets . County and city
governments throughout California are confronting
unprecedented fiscal challenges. The publicity and outrage
generated by the killing of a law enforcement officer can
often result in a change of venue and other extraordinary
SB 1356 -- 4/5/10 -- Page 3
trial costs that impose significant burdens on local
budgets. Building upon statutory language declaring that
"a county should not be required to bear the entire costs
of a trial involving a homicide if such costs will
seriously impair the finances of the county," SB 1356
shields county and city budgets from the potentially
devastating fiscal impacts of trials involving the killing
of a law enforcement officer.
2. Not uniform . Since 1961, the Legislature has
recognized that the prosecution and conduct of homicide
trials should not be affected by the amount of funding that
is available in any particular county. To promote the
uniform administration of justice, state law defines
extraordinary homicide trial costs through a formula that
compares a county's actual costs for homicide trials to the
county's property tax base. By reimbursing counties under
a formula based upon a homicide victim's identity, and not
upon a county's relative ability to cover the costs of a
specific case, SB 1356 erodes the principle of uniform
justice which is the original basis for providing state
reimbursements. Legislators may wish to consider whether,
in the future, advocates for other categories of homicide
victims may seek full state reimbursement of homicide trial
costs involving children, victims of domestic abuse,
victims of elder abuse, or others.
3. Unproven . Proponents of SB 1356 assert that homicides
of law enforcement officers generate uniquely high trial
costs, which justify more generous state reimbursements.
However, the recent pattern of reimbursements issued by the
State Controller's office does not support this argument.
Since 2004, Tehama and Merced Counties received
reimbursements for trials involving homicide victims who
were law enforcement officers. However, Mariposa,
Siskiyou, Stanislaus, and Trinity counties were reimbursed
for trials in which victims were not peace officers. Many
of the state's most expensive homicide trials, including
the prosecutions of Charles Ng and Carey Stayner, did not
involve law enforcement victims. Without proof that
homicides of peace officers usually cost counties more
money than other trials, the Committee may wish to consider
why state law should provide more generous reimbursements
for such trials.
4. Unprecedented . SB 1356 requires the state to reimburse
SB 1356 -- 4/5/10 -- Page 4
cities' investigative costs in addition to counties' costs.
The State Controller's Office is not aware of any
precedent for direct state reimbursement of city costs
associated with homicide trials. The committee may wish to
consider whether SB 1356 sets a precedent that invites
further expansion of the homicide trial reimbursement
formulas. What rationale would prevent future legislators
from authorizing state reimbursement of cities'
investigative costs for any homicide case that exceeds the
statutory threshold for extraordinary costs?
5. Double-referral . Because SB 1356 relates to local
costs for prosecuting and conducting homicide trials
involving peace officers, the Senate Rules Committee has
ordered a double-referral of the bill --- first to the
Senate Local Government Committee which has policy
jurisdiction over state reimbursements to local
governments, and then to the Senate Public Safety Committee
which has jurisdiction over bills relating to peace
officers.
Support and Opposition (4/1/10)
Support : California State Association of Counties,
California State Sheriffs' Association, County of Sonoma,
San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Rod Hoops.
Opposition : American Civil Liberties Union, California
Catholic Conference, Friends Committee on Legislation of
California.