BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1593|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1593
Author: Ma (D)
Amended: 3/29/12 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 6/12/12
AYES: Hancock, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Anderson, Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-20, 5/10/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Parole: intimate partner battering
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the Board of Parole Hearings
(BPH), when reviewing a prisoners 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 and provide that
they cannot use the fact that the prisoner brought in the
evidence to find that a prisoner lacks insight to his or
her crime.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that at all hearings for
the purpose of reviewing a prisoner's parole suitability,
or the setting, postponing, or rescinding of parole dates,
CONTINUED
AB 1593
Page
2
with the exception of en banc review of tie votes, the
following shall apply:
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.
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.
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.
The prisoner and any victim or next of kin shall be
permitted to request and receive a stenographic record of
all proceedings.
If the hearing is for the purpose of postponing or
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.
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 (PEN) Section 3041.5(a))
Existing law 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
AB 1593
Page
3
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. (PEN Section 3041.4)
Existing law 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. (PEN Section 3041.5(c))
Existing law 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. (PEN
Section 3043(d))
Existing law requires BPH to record parole hearings and
transcribe recordings of those hearings within 30 days of
any hearing. 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/her findings and supporting reasons on the record.
(PEN Section 3042(b) and (c))
Existing law states that in a criminal action, expert
testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the
AB 1593
Page
4
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))
Existing law 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. (PEN Section
4801(a))
This bill provides that BPH shall 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, but was convicted of an offence that occurred
prior to August 29, 1996.
Existing law 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
Evidence Code Section 1107. 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. (PEN Section 4801(b)(1))
This bill mandates BPH to include in its annual report to
the Legislature and the Governor specific and detailed
AB 1593
Page
5
findings of its investigations of cases where a prisoner
had experienced intimate partner battering at the time of
the offense.
This bill 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/her crime and its causes.
Prior Legislation
AB 220 (Assembly Public Safety Committee), Chapter 215,
Statutes of 2005
SB 499 (Burton), Chapter 652, Statutes of 2000
AB 231 (Kuehl), Chapter 905, Statutes of 1995
AB 3436 (Friedman), Chapter 1138, Statutes of 1992
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/25/12)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Habeas Project
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/25/12)
California District Attorneys Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Under current law, the Board of Prison Terms, also known
as the Parole Board, has the authority to consider IPB as
a factor in the suitability of the prisoner's parole.
Under SB 499 (2000), 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.
AB 1593
Page
6
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 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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District
Attorneys Association states:
Under existing law, BPH is required to consider such
information or evidence regarding IPB, but no bias toward
the impact of such is expressed. Additionally, existing
law (Penal Code section 1473.5) provides a special writ
of habeas corpus that may be prosecuted on the basis that
expert testimony relating to IPB and its effects was not
received in evidence at the trial court proceedings. In
this regard, we feel that existing law adequately
addresses the impacts of IPB.
AB 1593
Page
7
This bill effectively gives a person who has previously
filed an unsuccessful writ of habeas corpus based on IPB
the ability to use the same evidence to attempt gain
release from incarceration a second time. We have not
heard a convincing reason why such evidence should be
given more consideration than the statute currently
provides at a parole suitability hearing when it did not
result in habeas relief under existing law. Further, in
this particular case, we feel it is inappropriate to
direct BPH operations legislatively by expressing a bias
toward evidence of IPB, especially if such evidence was
unconvincing to a court in a habeas proceeding.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-20, 5/10/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles
Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis,
Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto,
Gordon, Halderman, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill,
Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Pan, Perea,
Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Garrick,
Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor,
Miller, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Valadao,
Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Blumenfield, Cook,
Fletcher, Furutani, Gorell, Jeffries, Olsen, V. Manuel
P�rez
RJG:m 6/25/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****