BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 428 (Strickland)
Hearing Date: 05/23/2011 Amended: 05/17/2011
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 428 is the public safety omnibus bill of
non-controversial changes to statute that are primarily
technical and non-substantive changes in various code sections
relating generally to criminal justice laws. This bill would
also provide for a change to the exception to the two dismissal
rule which bars further prosecution of a felony and would also
recast the specific cases under which a new trial may be granted
when a verdict has been rendered against a defendant. This bill
would also expand the scope of various existing misdemeanor
crimes.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Felony prosecutions Unknown; potentially significant General*
prosecution and incarceration
costsGeneral
in excess of $150 annually
New trials granted Unknown; potentially significant General*
court costs, potential incarceration
cost savings
Reallocation of POST Up to $100 annually; no net
impactGeneral**
funds to CalEPA appropriation of funds
*Trial Court Trust Fund
**Environmental Enforcement and Training Account
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Existing law provides a two dismissal rule which bars further
prosecution of a felony if the action has twice previously been
terminated pursuant to that statute's provisions. However,
Penal Code section 1387(c) provides an exception to the two
dismissal rule and states that an order terminating an action is
not a bar to prosecution if a complaint is dismissed before the
commencement of a preliminary hearing in favor of an indictment
SB 428 (Strickland)
Page 3
filed pursuant to Section 944 and the indictment is based upon
the same subject matter as charged in the dismissed complaint,
information, or indictment.
This bill would revise the existing language to separate the
clause into two separate conditions, and could expand the number
of exceptions to the two dismissal rule, resulting in an unknown
but potentially significant increase in criminal filings
resulting in additional state court costs of an unknown amount.
Further, to the extent increased criminal filings result in
additional convictions would result in increased state
incarceration costs. If one additional felony conviction
occurred in each of the next five years, the annual cost of
those five inmates during the fifth year would be $145,000.
Existing law provides that when a verdict has been rendered or a
finding made against a defendant, the court may, upon the
defendant's application, grant a new trial, under limited
specified cases. Under existing law, the fifth enumerated
circumstance under which a new trial may be granted occurs when
the court has misdirected the jury in a matter of law, or has
erred in the decision of any question of law arising during the
course of the trial, and when the district attorney or other
counsel prosecuting the case has been guilty of prejudicial
misconduct during the trial thereof before a jury.
This bill has recast this provision into two separate cases
under which a new trial may be granted, either 1) when the court
has misdirected the jury in a matter of law or has erred in the
decision of any question of law arising during the course of the
trial; or, 2) when the district attorney or other counsel
prosecuting the case has been guilty of prejudicial misconduct.
By expanding the circumstances under which a new trial may be
granted could result in an increased number of new trials and
associated state court costs of an unknown but potentially
significant amount. To the extent the re-trials could result in
findings in favor of the defendant could also result in state
and county incarceration cost savings.
Existing law directs California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) to provide the Commission on Peace Officers Standards
and Training (POST) a portion of the Environmental Enforcement
and Training Account funds for the development of environmental
crimes training for peace officers. This bill would allow the
SB 428 (Strickland)
Page 4
POST Commission to decline all or part of their annual
allocation of funds, and those funds shall be reallocated by the
Secretary to other entities listed in the title, including
CalEPA, the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project, or the
California District Attorneys Association, for the training of
peace officers in environmental crimes. The amount allocated to
POST has steadily decreased from $100,000 in 2005 through 2007,
$32,000 in 2008, $72,000 in 2009, to $17,557 in 2010-11. CalEPA
staff has indicated the amount to remain at this level or lower
for the next two to three years. This provision could result in
a maximum of $100,000 to be shifted from POST, at their
discretion, however, there is no net fiscal impact to the level
of funds appropriated to CalEPA.