BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
8
8
6
AB 886 (Cook)
As Introduced February 17, 2011
Hearing date: June 14, 2011
Penal Code
MK:mc
VICTIM'S RIGHTS:
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
HISTORY
Source: More Kids
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; Crime Victims
United of California; California Catholic Conference,
Inc.; California Peace Officers' Association;
California Narcotic Officers' Association; California
Police Chiefs Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PROHIBIT A COURT FROM RELEASING STATEMENTS FROM A
CRIME VICTIM TO THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO THE STATEMENT BEING HEARD IN
(More)
AB 886 (Cook)
Page 2
COURT?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit a court from releasing
statements from a crime victim to the public prior to the
statement being heard in court.
Existing law provides that it is the right of a crime victim, as
specified, to be notified of all sentencing proceedings, and of
the right to appear, to reasonably express his or her views,
have those views preserved by audio or video means, as
specified, and to have the court consider his or her statements,
as specified. (Penal Code � 679.02(a)(3).)
Existing law states that it is the right of a crime victim, as
specified, to be notified of all juvenile disposition hearings
in which the alleged act would have been a felony if committed
by an adult, and of the right to attend and to express his or
her views, as specified. (Penal Code � 679.02(a)(4).)
Existing law declares that a victim of any crime, as specified,
has the right to attend all sentencing proceedings under this
chapter and shall be given adequate notice by the probation
officer of all sentencing proceedings concerning the person who
committed the crime. Existing law further provides that the
victim, as specified, has the right to appear, personally or by
counsel, at the sentencing proceeding and to reasonably express
his, her, or their views concerning the crime, the person
responsible and the need for restitution and states that the
court in imposing sentence shall consider the statements of
victims, parents or guardians, and next of kin made pursuant to
this section and shall state on the record its conclusion
concerning whether the person would pose a threat to public
safety, if granted probation. (Penal Code � 1191.1.)
This bill prohibits the court from releasing victim or witness
statements prior to the statements being heard in court.
(More)
AB 886 (Cook)
Page 3
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
(More)
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Under current California law, a victim must submit a
victim impact statement in writing to the court before
sentencing. This allows the court to review the
statement to ensure that it complies with state law. It
also allows defendants the chance to review the
statement in accordance with their right to refute
materials used against them at trial.
When the victim impact statement is submitted in writing
to the court, it becomes a public document. This means
that the media is able to request and gain access to it.
This has led to situations where the victim impact
statement ends up being published in the newspaper
before the victim has the opportunity to read it in
court. This can diminish the power of the statement
when read in court, which undermines the rights of the
victim.
This bill would change the California Public Records Law
to prevent the release of a victim impact statement to
the public before it is read in court. This change
would prevent the release of victim impact statements to
the public before they are read in court, while still
guaranteeing the court's right to review the statement
in advance. This will not infringe upon the defendant's
right to have access to materials used against them in
court.
2. Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing
(More)
AB 886 (Cook)
Page 5
A sentencing court may consider "the testimony of witnesses
examined in open court" (Penal Code � 1204) and any facts
supplied by the trial record. The victim of the crime, the
parents or guardians of the victim if the victim is a minor, or
the next of kin of the victim if the victim has died have the
right to be notified of the sentencing hearing and to appear and
be heard concerning the crime, the defendant and the need for
restitution. (Penal Code � 1191.1.) The court must consider
these statements when imposing sentence. (Penal Code � 1191.1.)
Statements can be made in writing or on a recording medium
accepted by the court. Victims who give statements at
sentencing do not need to take an oath, are not subject to
cross-examination and are permitted to relate hearsay
information. (People v. Birmingham (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 180,
184.)
When the victim submits a letter to the court, instead of
testifying, due process requires that the defendant be permitted
to read the letter in advance and respond to that letter at the
sentencing hearing. (People v. Mockel (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d
581, 587; See generally Penal Code �� 1191.1 to 1191.3; See also
Penal Code � 1204 (testimony in aggravation or mitigation must
usually be in person).)
3. Prohibits Early Release of the Victim Statement
This bill would prohibit the release of the victim impact
statement prior to the statement being heard in court. It does
not change the release of such written statement to the
defendant.
***************