BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
9
0
6
SB 906 ( DeSaulnier)
As Amended April 25, 2011
Hearing date: May 3, 2011
Penal Code
SM:dl
CUSTODIAL HOUSING OF CODEFENDANTS
OR CO-CONSPIRATORS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Correctional Peace Officers Association;
Crime Victims United of California
Opposition:California State Sheriffs' Association
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED THAT WHEN NOTIFIED BY A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
OR COURT THAT TWO DEFENDANTS ARE EITHER CODEFENDANTS OR
CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT FELONY, AS DEFINED,
THE AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT HAVING CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANTS SHALL NOT
HOUSE THOSE INMATES WITHIN SIGHT OR SOUND OF EACH OTHER AND, TO THE
(More)
(DeSaulnier)
Page 2
EXTENT POSSIBLE, THOSE INMATES SHALL BE HOUSED IN SEPARATE
FACILITIES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require that when notified by a
prosecuting attorney or court that two defendants are either
codefendants or co-conspirators in the commission of a violent
felony, as defined, the agency or department having custody of
the defendants shall not house those inmates within sight or
sound of each other and, to the extent possible, those inmates
shall be housed in separate facilities.
Current law requires the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA)
to establish minimum standards for state and local correctional
facilities. CSA shall review those standards biennially and
make any appropriate revisions. The standards shall include,
but not be limited to, the following: health and sanitary
conditions, fire and life safety, security, rehabilitation
programs, recreation, treatment of persons confined in state and
local correctional facilities, and personnel training. (Penal
Code Section 6030(a) and (b).)
Current law defines a violent felony as one of the following
offenses:
� Murder or voluntary manslaughter
� Mayhem
� Rape by force or fear
� Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of
bodily injury
� Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or
fear of bodily injury
� Lewd act with child under fourteen years of age
(violent) and continuous sexual abuse of a child
� Any felony punishable by death or life imprisonment
(More)
(DeSaulnier)
Page 3
� Any felony in which defendant inflicts great bodily
injury on defendant or personally uses a firearm
� Attempted murder
� Assault with intent to commit a sex crime, robbery or
mayhem
� Arson of an inhabited structure or causing great bodily
injury
� Explosion causing great bodily injury or mayhem
� Explosion with intent to murder
� Burglary of inhabited dwelling if another person other
than an accomplice is present
� Robbery, bank robbery or carjacking
� Kidnapping
� Inmate taking a hostage
� Attempted crime carrying a life sentence or death
penalty
� Any felony where defendant personally uses a dangerous
or deadly weapon
� Forcible foreign object rape
� Any violation of 10-20-life firearm use and discharge
enhancement law
� A gang-related felony involving extortion or witness
intimidation)
(Penal Code section 667.5(c).)
Current law provides that no child under the age of 16 years
shall be placed in any courtroom, or in any vehicle for
transportation to any place, in company with adults charged with
or convicted of crime, except in the presence of a proper
official. (Penal Code section 273b.)
This bill would require that when notified by a prosecuting
attorney or court that two defendants are either codefendants or
coconspirators in the commission of a violent felony, as
defined, the agency or department having custody of the
defendants shall not house those inmates within sight or sound
(More)
(DeSaulnier)
Page 4
of each other and, to the extent possible, those inmates shall
be housed in separate facilities.
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 Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
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 not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
(DeSaulnier)
Page 5
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Existing law appears to allow co-conspirators of
violent felonies to be jailed or imprisoned together
during trial and after conviction. In a specific case
discussed below, it appears that co-conspirators who
committed a murder were jailed together for a brief
period during the trial and were also briefly together
at a CDCR reception center. It appears that both
County Sheriffs and CDCR try to avoid this, but there
is no formal policy, regulation or statute that
addresses this.
2. Background
This bill results from a case in San Joaquin County in which two
men convicted of murdering a Tracy woman were apparently housed
in the same cell for approximately two days. The Tracy Press
reported:
Robert Morgan, 39, and Jorge Morgan, 24, were earlier
this month sentenced to life in prison without parole
for the murder of Cynthia Ramos, 58.
?.
Both Morgans, registered domestic partners in San
Joaquin County, are temporarily being held at Deuel
Vocational Institution, east of Tracy, but a prison
(More)
(DeSaulnier)
Page 6
spokesman said that's not necessarily where they'll
remain forever.
The partners are not being held in the same cell, a
representative for the prison said.
?
An order early in the trial kept the Morgans apart
while in jail and on buses to and from court, but in
November, the two were mistakenly put in the same DVI
cell for about two days.
?
Kevin Chappell, who places inmates in the state's
prisons, said the state has yet to place the Morgans
in permanent prisons, but their relationship wouldn't
necessarily mean they'd be kept separated.
He said they would be kept apart if the prison decides
putting them together would risk the safety of the men
or other inmates at the jail.
Chappell said the two are temporarily at DVI because
it's the closest facility to where they were
sentenced, and it's unclear when they might be moved
to their permanent prison.
Chappell said that when placing prisoners, the state
considers inmates' sentences, medical and psychiatric
health, work skills, education and crime history.
Both Morgans have served time at DVI for previous
crimes, and they have said they met in Mule Creek
State Prison, where they shared a cell.
...
(More)
"Is it ethical for two men who plotted and carried out
such a gruesome act together to live out their lives
together behind bars?" (asked the victims eldest
daughter). "It comes down to what's right. If there is
no law in place that states they can't be together,
maybe there should be."
(Victim's Daughter Asks Partnered Murderers Be
Imprisoned Apart, Tracy Press, February 23, 2010
http://www.tracypress.com/view/full_story/6446641/artic
le-Victim%E2%80%99s-daughter-asks-partnered-murderers-b
e-imprisoned-apart#ixzz1K0mycyK7)
(More)
3. What This Bill Would Do
This bill would require that, when notified by a court or
prosecutor that two inmates are either charged as codefendants
or alleged to be co-conspirators in a violent felony case, as
defined by Penal Code section 667.5(c), whether they are being
held in a county jail or state prison, awaiting trial or after
conviction and sentencing, they may not be housed within sight
or sound of each other. The Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) has informed Committee staff that it is
their current practice to separate such prisoners. It is most
likely also current practice of county sheriff's departments to
keep codefendants or coconspirators separated to avoid giving
them the opportunity to "get their stories straight." As a
practical matter, however, it may prove difficult for county
sheriffs, particularly in small counties with limited jail
facilities, to comply in all instances. While law enforcement
agencies have a natural incentive to follow this practice
already, by imposing this requirement on State and local law
enforcement agencies, this bill would appear to create liability
where, for some reason, two such prisoners are housed in
circumstances in which they might come within sight or sound of
each other.
WOULD THIS CREATE POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR INADVERTENT OR
UNAVOIDABLE HOUSING OF SUCH PRISONERS WITHIN SIGHT OR SOUND OF
EACH OTHER?
4. Argument in Support
The Correctional Peace Officers Association states:
SB 906 provides a common sense approach to dealing
with persons who commit violent felonies in
conjunction with each other. In our view, it
represents the appropriate correctional practice. At
the same time, SB 906 is not overly restrictive on the
staff that operate our jails and prisons.
(DeSaulnier)
Page 9
***************