BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1593
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1593 (Ma) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
SUMMARY : Requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), when
reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole, to give great
weight to any information or evidence that, at the time of the
commission of the crime, the prisoner had experienced intimate
partner battering. Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies that BPH must consider information or evidence that,
at the time of the crime, the person had experienced intimate
partner battering if the person was convicted of an offense
that occurred prior to August 29, 1996.
2)Mandates BPH to include in its annual report to the
Legislature and the Governor specific and detailed findings of
its investigations of cases where a prisoner had experienced
intimate partner battering at the time of the offense.
3)States that the fact that a prisoner has presented evidence of
intimate partner battering cannot be used to support a finding
that the prisoner lacks insight into his or her crime and its
causes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes BPH 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. Defines "intimate partner battering and its effects"
to include evidence of the nature and effects of physical,
emotional, or mental abuse upon the beliefs, perceptions, or
behavior of victims of domestic violence where it appears the
criminal behavior was the result of that victimization.
�Penal Code Section 4801(a).]
AB 1593
Page 2
2)Requires BPH, in reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole
to consider any information or evidence that, at the time of
the commission of the crime, the prisoner had experienced
intimate partner battering, but was convicted of the offense
prior to the enactment of Section 1107 of the Evidence Code.
The BPH shall state on the record the information or evidence
that it considered pursuant to this subdivision, and the
reasons for the parole decision. The BPH shall annually
report to the Legislature and the Governor on the cases the
BPH considered pursuant to this subdivision during the
previous year, including the BPH's decision and the findings
of its investigations of these cases. �Penal Code Section
4801(b)(1).]
3)Provides that at all hearings for the purpose of reviewing a
prisoner's parole suitability, or the setting, postponing, or
rescinding of parole dates, with the exception of en banc
review of tie votes, the following shall apply :
a) At least 10 days prior to any hearing by BPH, the
prisoner shall be permitted to review his or her file which
will be examined by the BPH and shall have the opportunity
to enter a written response to any material contained in
the file.
b) The prisoner shall be permitted to be present, to ask
and answer questions, and to speak on his or her own
behalf. Neither the prisoner nor the attorney for the
prisoner shall be entitled to ask questions of any person
appearing at the hearing.
c) Unless legal counsel is required by some other provision
of law, a person designated by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation shall be present to ensure
that all facts relevant to the decision be presented,
including, if necessary, contradictory assertions as to
matters of fact that have not been resolved by departmental
or other procedures.
d) The prisoner and any victim or next of kin shall be
permitted to request and receive a stenographic record of
all proceedings.
e) If the hearing is for the purpose of postponing or
AB 1593
Page 3
rescinding of parole dates, the prisoner shall have right
to have witnesses called, unless the person conducting the
hearing has specific reasons to deny this request, and the
prisoner shall have the right to question all witnesses.
f) The BPH shall set a date to reconsider whether an inmate
should be released on parole that ensures a meaningful
consideration of whether the inmate is suitable for release
on parole. �Penal Code Section 3041.5(a).]
4)Requires at any hearing for the purpose of setting,
postponing, or rescinding a parole release date of a prisoner
under a life sentence, the prisoner shall be entitled to be
represented by counsel. BPH shall provide by rule for the
invitation of the prosecutor of the county from which the
prisoner was committed, or his representative, to represent
the interests of the people at the hearing. BPH shall notify
the prosecutor and the Attorney General at least 30 days prior
to the date of the hearing. (Penal Code Section 3041.4.)
5)States that the hearing shall be conducted as a de novo
hearing. Findings made and conclusions reached in a prior
parole hearing shall be considered in but shall not be deemed
to be binding upon subsequent parole hearings for an inmate,
but shall be subject to reconsideration based upon changed
facts and circumstances. When conducting a hearing, the BPH
shall admit the prior recorded or memorialized testimony or
statement of a victim or witness, upon request of the victim
or if the victim or witness has died or become unavailable.
At each hearing the BPH shall determine the appropriate action
to be taken based on the criteria set forth in paragraph (3)
of subdivision (a) of Section 3041. �Penal Code Section
3041.5(c).]
6)States that BPH, in deciding whether to release the person on
parole, shall consider the entire and uninterrupted statements
of the victim or victims, next of kin, immediate family
members of the victim, and the designated representatives of
the victim or next of kin, if applicable, made pursuant to
this section and shall include in its report a statement
whether the person would pose a threat to public safety if
released on parole. �Penal Code Section 3043(d).]
7)Requires BPH to record parole hearings and transcribe
recordings of those hearings within 30 days of any hearing.
AB 1593
Page 4
Those transcripts, including the transcripts of all prior
hearings, shall be filed and maintained in the office of the
Board of Prison Terms and shall be made available to the
public no later than 30 days from the date of the hearing. No
prisoner shall actually be released on parole prior to 60 days
from the date of the hearing. At any hearing, the presiding
hearing officer shall state his or her findings and supporting
reasons on the record. �Penal Code Section 3042(b) and (c).]
8)States that in a criminal action, expert testimony is
admissible by either the prosecution or the 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 criminal defendant to
prove the occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form
the basis of the criminal charge. �Evidence Code Section
1107(a).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "All of victims
that are eligible for parole have served the minimum amount of
their sentence. The individuals that suffered intimate
partner battering and its effects are being double victimized.
They were victimized first by their abusers and later by the
system. When the majority of these victims were sentenced
there was a limited amount of resources to help victims get
out of these abusive relationships, which in many cases led to
the death of the abuser by the victim. AB 1593 provides
victims of domestic violence who have suffered Intimate
Partner Battering (IPB) a chance to present their evidence in
an effective way during the parole process without being
victimized again."
2)Background : According to the background information provided
by the author, "Domestic violence encompasses a spectrum and
often a pattern of behaviors that includes physical, sexual,
verbal, emotional, economic, or psychological used by one
partner to gain or maintain power and control over another
intimate partner. Domestic violence can happen to anyone
regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic background, or education level.
AB 1593
Page 5
"Currently, over 7,000 women are imprisoned in California's
state prisons, the majority of whom have survived domestic
violence. Several hundred women in California are serving
time for killing their batterers and hundreds, if not
thousands more, are serving time for domestic violence-related
crimes.
"A California state prison study found that 93% of the women who
had killed their significant others had been battered by them;
67% of these women indicated the crime resulted from an
attempt to protect themselves or their children.
"In 1994, the Legislature enacted SB 499 to give the Board of
Prison Terms, also known as the Parole Board, the authority to
consider IPB as a factor in the suitability of the prisoner's
parole. Under SB 499, the Board is also required to make a
finding in the record on the facts considered by the Parole
Board. The Parole Board is then required to report annually
to the Legislature and the Governor on the parole decisions
involving IPB. However, the Parole Board's report does not
offer concrete details of how the Parole Board evaluates the
IPB claims.
"Currently, when a domestic violence victim is questioned by the
parole board on the crimes they committed, the victim often
discusses the history of their victimization and their prior
abuse. The Parole Board often considers this acknowledgement
of victimization as "lack of insight" and denies their parole.
"In 2001, California enacted SB 799 to allow domestic violence
victims to file habeas corpus claims for crimes relating to
IPB before January 1992. However, the California Supreme
Court did not hear an IPB case until August 29, 1996, in
People v. Humphrey. Later the Legislature changed Penal Code
Section 1473.5 to reflect the date of this decision. However,
Penal Code Section 4801 referring to IPB in Parole Board
hearings has not been amended to reflect the date of the
Court's decision.
"AB 1593 requires that the parole board give great weight to any
information or evidence that proves the prisoner experienced
intimate partner battering (IPB) and its effects at the time
the crime was committed. AB 1593 ensures the date the crime
AB 1593
Page 6
took place is consistent with date established in current IPB
statute (Penal Code 1473.5). AB 1593 will also prohibit the
parole board commissioners from using "lack of insight" as
evidence to deny suitability in cases involving IPB."
3)Arguments in Support :
a) According to the California Habeas Project , "AB 1593
will ensure that the Board of Parole Hearings gives
appropriate consideration to evidence of domestic violence.
Sometimes, when a survivor presents evidence of IPBE
�intimate partner battering and its effects] at her parole
hearing, BPH uses it as a reason that she is unsuitable for
parole. We have seen a number of cases where due to a lack
of understanding about domestic violence, BPH has construed
a survivor's explanation of the link between her experience
of abuse and her involvement in the crime as 'lack of
insight' into the crime and its causes. Moreover, the bill
will ensure that BPH gives "great weight" to evidence of
IPBE."
b) According to the California Public Defenders
Association , "Too often, recommendations against parole
release are made solely due to the charge being homicide
related while placing little weight on evidence showing
that the victim was a domestic violence victim whose charge
was directly related or a result of the battering
experience. AB 1593 steers the focus in the right
direction. The Board of Parole Hearings should not merely
consider but should accord great weight to the reports of
prison psychologists and other clinicians as well as
evidence existing from trial proceedings showing that he
individual being considered for parole suitability was a
victim of intimate partner battering and its effects and
the committing offense was related to the battering
experience.
"Appropriately, AB 1593 states that the Board of Parole
Hearings must make findings and not use the proferred
evidence against the inmate to show lack of remorse. AB
1593 would prohibit the fact that a prisoner has presented
evidence of intimate partner battering from supporting a
finding that the prisoner lacks insight into her crime and
its causes."
AB 1593
Page 7
4)Related Legislation : AB 593 (Ma) allows a writ of habeas
corpus to be prosecuted if expert testimony relating to
intimate partner battering and its effects was received into
evidence but was limited at the trial court proceedings
relating to a prisoner's incarceration for the commission of a
violent felony committed prior to August 29, 1996, and there
is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine
confidence in the judgment of conviction, that if the
testimony had not been limited, the result of the proceedings
would have been different. AB 593 also deletes the sunset
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. AB 593 is pending hearing
by the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
5)Previous 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."
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) SB 499 (Burton), Chapter 462, Statutes of 2000, requires
BPH, in reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole to
consider any information or evidence that, at the time of
the commission of the crime, the prisoner had suffered from
AB 1593
Page 8
BWS, but was convicted of the offense prior to the
enactment of Evidence Code Section 1107. SB 499 also
requires BPH to state on the record the information or
evidence it considered pursuant to these provisions, and
the reasons for the parole decision, and report annually to
the Legislature and the Governor.
f) AB 785 (Eaves), Chapter 812, Statutes of 1991, made
expert testimony regarding BWS admissible in court under
specified conditions.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Habeas Project
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744