BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 593
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 10, 2012
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 593 (Ma) - As Amended: January 5, 2012
SUMMARY : Deletes the January 1, 2020 repeal date on provisions
of law that allow a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on
grounds that evidence relating to intimate partner battering
and its effects was not introduced at the trial, thereby
affecting the outcome of the trial. Expands eligibility for the
current writ of habeas corpus to include petitioners who were
allowed to introduce evidence relating to intimate partner
battering and its effects at the trial court proceedings but was
limited, and this evidence is of such substance that had it not
been limited there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to
undermine the confidence in the judgment of conviction, that the
result of the proceedings would have been different.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be brought on the
basis that evidence relating to intimate partner battering and
its effects, as defined, was not introduced at the trial
relating to the prisoner's incarceration for a conviction of a
violent felony, as defined, and was of such substance that had
it been introduced there is a reasonable probability,
sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of
conviction, that the result of the proceedings would have been
different. �Penal Code Section 1473.5(a).]
2)Provides that a petitioner's previous filing for habeas corpus
under this section is grounds for denial of the new petition
if a court determined on the merits in the prior petition that
the omission of expert testimony relating to battered women's
syndrome or intimate partner battering and its effects at
trial was not prejudicial and did not entitle the petitioner
to the writ of habeas corpus. �Penal Code Section 1473.5(c).]
3)Provides that the section authorizing a writ of habeas corpus
based on intimate partner battering and its effects shall
AB 593
Page 2
remain in effect only until January 1, 2020. �Penal Code
Section 1473.5(e).]
4)Provides that in a criminal action expert testimony is
admissible by either the prosecution or defense regarding
intimate partner battering and its effects, 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. (Evidence Code Section 1107.)
5)Provides that the court in its discretion may 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, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.
(Evidence Code Section 352.)
6)Provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained
of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may
prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of
such imprisonment or restraint. �Penal Code Section 1473(a).]
7)Provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for,
but not limited to, the following reasons:
a) False evidence that is substantially material or
probative on the issue of guilt, or punishment was
introduced against a person at any hearing or trial
relating to his incarceration; and
b) False physical evidence believed by a person to be
factual, material or probative on the issue of guilt, which
was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of
guilty and which was a material factor directly related to
the plea of guilty by the person. �Penal Code Section
1473(b).]
8)States that any allegation that the prosecution knew or should
have known of the false nature of the evidence is immaterial
to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus. �Penal Code
Section 1473(c).]
9)States that nothing in this section shall be construed as
AB 593
Page 3
limiting the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be
prosecuted or as precluding the use of any other remedies.
�Penal Code Section 1473(d).]
10)Allows the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) to report to the
Governor, from time to time, the names of any and all persons
imprisoned in any state prison who, in its judgment, ought to
have a commutation of sentence or be pardoned and set at
liberty on account of good conduct, or unusual term of
sentence, or any other cause, including evidence of intimate
partner battering and its effects, as defined. �Penal Code
Section 4801(a).]
11)Requires the BPT, in considering a prisoner's suitability for
parole, to consider any evidence that, at the time of the
commission of the crime, the prisoner had experienced intimate
partner battering and was convicted of the offense prior to
this defense being recognized. The board shall state on the
record the information or evidence that it considered pursuant
to this subdivision, and the reasons for the parole decision.
The board shall annually report to the Legislature and the
Governor on the cases the board considered pursuant to this
subdivision during the previous year, including the board's
decision and the findings of its investigations of these
cases. �Penal Code Section 4801(b).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "AB 593 seeks to
delete the January 1, 2020 sunset date of current law, which
allows domestic violence survivors convicted of 'violent'
felonies to petition the court for a retrial or reduced
sentence by filing habeas corpus petitions if expert testimony
on intimate partner battering and its effects was not
considered at the time their case originally was prosecuted.
Writ of Habeas Corpus : Habeas corpus, also known as "the Great
Writ", is a process guaranteed by both the federal and state
constitutions to obtain prompt judicial relief from illegal
restraint. The functions of the writ is set forth in Penal
Code Section 1473(a): "Every person unlawfully imprisoned or
restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever,
may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the
AB 593
Page 4
cause of such imprisonment or restraint." It was not until
2001 that the Legislature stated specifically that intimate
battering and its effects are grounds for pursuing a writ of
habeas corpus for a person convicted of murder prior to 1992
where evidence of intimate battering and its effects existed
but was not presented. �SB 799 (Karnette), Chapter 858,
Statutes of 2001.]
According to the background provided by the author of SB 799,
"In 1991, the Legislature enacted AB 785 (Eaves), Chapter 812,
Statutes of 1991, amending Evidence Code Section 1107 to allow
evidence of BWS to be introduced as evidence in cases where
battered women are accused of killing or assaulting their
abusers. BWS evidence helps explain to juries how a battered
woman could have an honest belief she was in imminent danger,
and viewed her action as self-defense.
"Unfortunately, passage of AB 785 did not help those women who
were convicted of killing or assaulting their abusive husbands
prior to the legal community recognizing the relevance of BWS
evidence. In fact, prior to the passage of AB 785, many
judges refused to allow this type of evidence to be admitted
in court. Without the opportunity to offer such evidence,
some women were denied an opportunity to present a full
defense.
"Some of the women who were convicted of murder before the
passage of AB 785 might have been convicted of manslaughter
instead had BWS evidence been introduced at their trial. As a
result, a number of women convicted prior to 1992 are serving
sentences that are substantially longer than those woman
convicted today of the identical offense.
"There is simply no reason to penalize women who had a good
defense to killing their abusive spouses simply because, at
the time their convictions became final, the factual basis for
the defense was so little understood that the courts are not
willing to fault trial counsel for not presenting it."
In 2002, the first habeas corpus petition based on the new
statute was filed by the Post-Conviction Project on behalf of
petitioner Marva Joyce Wallace who was convicted of
first-degree murder of her husband in 2002. �Hempel, Battered
and Convicted: One State's Efforts to Provide Effective Relief
(Winter 2011) Criminal Justice, Volume 25, Number 4, at pages
AB 593
Page 5
7.] Ms. Wallace's petition was granted after a hearing in
which Ms. Wallace, an expert witness on battering and its
effects, and several witnesses to the abuse testified. The
court vacated the conviction and gave the district attorney
the option to recharge. Ms. Wallace eventually pled to
voluntary manslaughter with time served. (Id.) As of 2011,
at least 19 women have been released from prison through the
collaborative efforts of community legal organizations,
private law firms, and individual attorneys. (Id. at page 8.)
2)Other States' Laws on Evidence of Domestic Violence :
California is the only state with a habeas statute that
explicitly provides a remedy for petitioners who suffered from
intimate partner battering and its effects. Other states
allow for evidence of domestic violence and battering in
parole consideration hearings or as a factor of mitigating
circumstances during sentencing:
a) Missouri state law provides that an offender serving a
life sentence convicted prior to December 31, 1990, may be
considered for parole if the offender can show corroborated
evidence of a history of being a victim of continual
domestic violence �Mo. Ann. Stat. � 217.692 (LexisNexis
2011)];
b) South Carolina state law provides that an inmate may be
considered for parole after serving one-fourth of his or
her sentence if the inmate offers credible evidence of
criminal domestic violence by a household member at the
time of the conviction �S.C. Code Ann. � 16-25-90 (
LexisNexis 2011)];
c) Kentucky state law provides that an offender convicted
prior to July 14, 1992, may file a motion in the circuit
court requesting earlier parole consideration on the basis
that the offender was a victim of domestic violence or
abuse �Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. � 439.3402 (LexisNexis 2011)];
d) Alaska state law provides for mitigation in sentencing
in a conviction for assault or attempted assault or for
homicide or attempted homicide, where the defendant acted
in response to domestic violence perpetrated by the victim
against the defendant and the domestic violence consisted
of aggravated or repeated instances of assaultive behavior
�Alaska Stat. � 12.55.155(d)(16) (LexisNexis 2011)]; and,
AB 593
Page 6
e) Indiana state law provides that the court may consider
as a factor of mitigating circumstances for sentencing
purposes that the person was convicted of a crime involving
the use of force against a person who had repeatedly
inflicted physical or sexual abuse upon the convicted
person and evidence shows that the convicted person
suffered from the effects of battery as a result of the
past course of conduct of the individual who is the victim
of the crime for which the person was convicted. �Burns
Ind. Code Ann. � 35-38-1-7.1(b)(11) (LexisNexis 2011).]
�Hempel, Battered and Convicted: One State's Efforts to
Provide Effective Relief (Winter 2011) Criminal Justice,
Volume 25, Number 4, at page 3.]
3)Argument in Support : According to the California Public
Defenders' Association , "We celebrate the fact that this
important law has already lead to the release of several
battered persons from prison who served far too many years
because they were not able to present crucial evidence at
trial of their history of being battered. In 1992, Evidence
Code section 1107 was passed to allow expert testimony on
battered women's syndrome to be introduced in trials where a
history of battering was relevant. In 1996 the California
Supreme Court expanded uses for which expert testimony was
deemed relevant. (People v. Humphrey). There are many
survivors of battering convicted between 1992 and 1996 who
deserve the opportunity to have the courts evaluate how expert
testimony on battering and its effects relates to their
cases."
4)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 2306 (Karnette), Chapter 146, Statues of 2008,
extends the sunset date from
January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2020 on provisions of law
allowing a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on
grounds that evidence relating to battered women's syndrome
(BWS) was not introduced at the trial, thereby affecting
the outcome of the trial.
b) SB 1385(Burton), Chapter 609, Statutes of 2004, replaced
the term "battered women's syndrome" with the phrase
"intimate partner battering and its effects."
AB 593
Page 7
c) SB 784 (Karnette), Chapter 136, Statutes of 2003,
extends from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2010, the sunset
date of allowing a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted
on the grounds that evidence relating to BWS was not
introduced at the trial, thereby affecting the outcome of
the case.
d) SB 799 (Karnette), Chapter 858, Statutes of 2001, allows
a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the grounds
that evidence relating to BWS was not introduced at the
trial, thereby affecting the outcome of the case.
e) AB 785 (Eaves), Chapter 812, Statutes of 1991, made
expert testimony regarding BWS admissible in court under
specified conditions.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Public Defenders Association
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744