BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
3
8
7
SB 387 (La Malfa)
As Amended April 7, 2011
Hearing date: January 10, 2012
Penal Code
MK:mc
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: FELONY HIT AND RUN
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California District Attorneys Association; California
State Sheriffs' Association; Del Norte County Board of
Supervisors
Opposition:California Coalition for Women Prisoners; California
Public Defenders Association; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR
FLEEING AN ACCIDENT WHERE INJURY OR DEATH OCCURRED BE 6 YEARS?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 387 (La Malfa)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to extend the statute of limitation
for fleeing an accident where a death or injury occurred from 3
to 6 years.
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable
by death or life without the possibility of parole, or for
embezzling public money, may be commenced at any time.
(Penal Code � 799.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for any offense for which
the person would be required to register as a sex offender shall
be commenced within 10 years after commission of the offense
(unless otherwise provided under law, as specified; see ��
801.1, 801.3). (Penal Code � 801.5.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable
by eight years in prison shall be commenced within six years
after the commission of the offense. (Penal Code � 800.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense involving
elder or dependent adult abuse, except involving theft or
embezzlement, shall be prosecuted within five years after the
commission of the offense. (Penal Code � 801.6.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense involving
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty or official misconduct, as
specified, shall be prosecuted within four years after discovery
of the offense or completion of the offense, whichever is later.
(Penal Code � 801.5.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison, unless otherwise specified,
shall be commenced within three years of the commission of the
offense. (Penal Code � 801.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for misdemeanors, except
as otherwise specified, shall commence within one year after
commission of the offense. (Penal Code � 802.)
This bill provides that fleeing an accident and causing death or
(More)
SB 387 (La Malfa)
PageC
injury shall be commenced within 6 years after the offense.
This bill states that it shall be known as the Joshua Lacy Law.
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.
(More)
SB 387 (La Malfa)
PageD
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.
This bill does appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
This legislation was introduced because Josh Lacy was
the victim of a hit and run accident and passed away.
Unfortunately, due to the statute of limitation, those
charged with the crimes weren't eligible for some of the
charges relating to the accident. We would like to
extend the statute of limitation in order for those that
commit a crime to be punished accordingly.
2. The Statute of Limitations Generally; Law Revision Commission
Report
The statute of limitations requires commencement of a
prosecution within a certain period of time after the commission
of a crime. A prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment
or information, filing a complaint, certifying a case to
superior court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant. (Penal
Code � 804.) The failure of a prosecution to be commenced
within the applicable period of limitation is a complete defense
to the charge. The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and
(More)
SB 387 (La Malfa)
PageE
may be raised as a defense at any time, before or after
judgment. People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13. The defense
may only be waived under limited circumstances. (See Cowan v.
Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.)
The Legislature enacted the current statutory scheme regarding
statutes of limitations for crimes in 1984 in response to a
report of the California Law Revision Commission:
The Commission identified various factors to be
considered in drafting a limitations statute. These
factors include: (a) The staleness factor. A person
accused of crime should be protected from having to face
charges based on possibly unreliable evidence and from
losing access to the evidentiary means to defend. (b)
The repose factor. This reflects society's lack of a
desire to prosecute for crimes committed in the distant
past. (c) The motivation factor. This aspect of the
statute imposes a
priority among crimes for investigation and prosecution.
(d) The seriousness factor. The statute of limitations
is a grant of amnesty to a defendant; the more serious
the crime, the less willing society is to grant that
amnesty. (e) The concealment factor. Detection of
certain concealed crimes may be quite difficult and may
require long investigations to identify and prosecute
the perpetrators.
The Commission concluded that a felony limitations
statute generally should be based on the seriousness of
the crime. Seriousness is easily determined based on
classification of a crime as felony or misdemeanor and
the punishment specified, and a scheme based on
seriousness generally will accommodate the other factors
as well. Also, the simplicity of a limitations period
based on seriousness provides predictability and
promotes uniformity of treatment.<1>
---------------------------
<1> 1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses, Section 214 (3rd Ed.
2004), citing 17 Cal. Law Rev. Com. Reports, pp.308-314.
(More)
SB 387 (La Malfa)
PageF
3. Statute of Limitations for Fleeing an Accident Causing
Injury or Death
Existing law prohibits fleeing the scene of an accident. If a
person flees an accident that caused death or permanent serious
injury, the person is guilty of a wobbler punished by two, three
or four years in state prison or in county jail for 90 days to
one year. (Vehicle Code 20001 (b)(2).) The statute of
limitations would be 3 years after the commission of the
offense, unless it was charged initially as a misdemeanor, in
which case it would be one year. The existing 3-year
limitations period seems consistent with the sentencing
provisions applicable to this crime and with the recommendations
of the Law Revision Commission. This bill would extend the
statute of limitations to 6 years.
Six years is longer than the longest sentence a person can get
for fleeing an accident that caused death or injury. This is
contrary to the seriousness factor suggested by the Law Revision
Commission. It also brings into question the "staleness" issue.
Does law enforcement have the incentive to solve a case as
quickly with the longer statute of limitations, and does a delay
lead to the evidence becoming stale? How difficult is it to
defend oneself from a wrongful accusation that is 6 years old?
On the other hand, supporters argue that fleeing the scene of an
accident makes it hard for law enforcement to solve the crime.
According to the California State Sheriffs' Association:
John Lacy, a high school sophomore, was killed while
waiting for the school bus, and immediately after the
accident the defendants fled the scene. It took a
majority of the time allocated by the statute of
limitation to find the suspects, leaving the District
Attorney unable to charge the defendants with many of
the crimes.
SHOULD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FLEEING THE SCENE OF AN
ACCIDENT CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY INJURY BE INCREASED FROM 3 TO 6
YEARS?
(More)
SB 387 (La Malfa)
PageG
***************
(More)