BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1357|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1357
Author: Cannella (R)
Amended: 5/8/12
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 3/27/12
AYES: Hancock, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/1/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
SUBJECT : Removal from office: grand jury accusation
SOURCE : Monterey County Office of the District Attorney
DIGEST : This bill provides that the grand jury
presenting the accusation against an officer for willful or
corrupt misconduct in office may also be a criminal grand
jury.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a crime or public
offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a
law forbidding or commanding it, and to which it annexed,
upon conviction, either of the following punishments:
Death.
Imprisonment.
Fine.
Removal from office; or
CONTINUED
SB 1357
Page
2
Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust or profit in this state. (Penal Code Section 15)
Existing law provides that ?�t]he first pleading on the
part of the people in a proceeding pursuant to Section 3060
of the Government Code is an accusation. (Penal Code
Section 949)
Existing law provides that every superior court, whenever
in its opinion the public interest so requires, shall draw
a grand jury. (Penal Code Section 904)
Existing law provides that presiding judge in a county with
a population between 370,000 and 400,000 may impanel one
additional grand jury upon application by the district
attorney. (Penal Code Section 904.4)
Existing law authorizes the presiding judge of the superior
court, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge to
supervise the grand jury to, upon the request of the
Attorney General or the district attorney or upon his/her
own motion, order and direct the impanelment, of one
additional grand jury, as specified. (Penal Code Section
904.6)
Existing law provides that notwithstanding Penal Code
Section 904.6, the presiding judge of the superior court of
the County of Los Angeles may impanel up to two additional
grand juries upon the request of the Attorney General or
the district attorney. (Penal Code Section 904.8)
Existing law sets for the procedure for convicting someone
of willful or corrupt misconduct in office and removal from
office for the conduct. (Government Code Sections
3060-3071)
Existing law provides that an accusation in writing against
any officer of a district, county, or city including any
member of the governing board or personnel commission of a
school district or any humane officer for willful or
corrupt misconduct in office, may be presented by the grand
jury of the county for, or in, which the officer accused is
elected or appointed. (Government Code Section 3060)
CONTINUED
SB 1357
Page
3
This bill provides that a criminal grand jury, as impaneled
pursuant to Penal Code Sections 904.4, 904.6, or 904.8 may
be the grand jury that presents the above accusation.
This bill updates the existing law provision regarding the
concurrence necessary among grand juries of different sizes
to result in an accusation, in order to account for
counties which the number of grand jury members is 23.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/8/12)
Monterey County Office of the District Attorney (source)
California District Attorneys Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Under current law, district attorneys have the option to
remove public officials from office via a civil grand
jury comprised of specially selected citizens or a
criminal grand jury chosen randomly and impartially.
Because case law is unclear as to whether an accusation
is civil or criminal in nature, there is question of
whether a civil or criminal grand jury is the appropriate
tool.
In the 1970s, appellate courts began dismissing rulings
made by specially selected civil grand juries deeming
accusations to be criminal in nature. However, in 1993
the Attorney General opined that criminal grand juries
could not handle civil matters. Thus, if an accusation
was found to be a civil matter, the ruling from a
criminal grand jury could be dismissed. As a result, it
could take years of litigation and expense for the courts
to determine which type of grand jury should make the
ultimate decision regarding an accusation against a
public official.
SB 1357 grants the responsibility of presenting such an
accusation to a criminal grand jury, thus ensuring that
public officials guilty of willful or corrupt misconduct
can be safely removed from office without the accusation
CONTINUED
SB 1357
Page
4
being dismissed on procedural grounds.
The bill' sponsor, the Monterey County Office of the
District Attorney, writes, "The question �of] whether an
accusation is civil or criminal in nature has a direct
impact on which grand jury can present an accusation. �The
Attorney General's 1993 opinion] supports the argument that
a criminal grand jury cannot present an accusation. On the
other hand, an accusation presented by a specially selected
civil grand jury would probably be attacked as a violation
of constitutional due process. The trial or appellate
court ruling on the issue could very well side with the
earlier cases describing an accusation as criminal in
nature and, therefore, subject to all the due process
requirements for criminal prosecutions. All of this puts
district attorneys in a quandary. ?Rather than risk years
of litigation and much expense to settle this issue, the
legislature could solve the problem now by specifying which
grand jury may present an accusation."
RJG:mw 5/9/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED