Amended in Assembly May 15, 2014

California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session

Assembly Joint ResolutionNo. 45


Introduced by Assembly Member Skinner

begin insert

(Coauthors: Assembly Members Garcia, Maienschein, Stone, and Waldron)

end insert
begin insert

(Coauthors: Senators Cannella, Leno, and Vidak)

end insert

April 10, 2014


Assembly Joint Resolution No. 45—Relative to sexual assault forensic exams.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AJR 45, as amended, Skinner. Sexual assault forensic exams: federal funding.

This measure would urge the Congress of the United States tobegin delete approve President Obama’s proposal toend delete providebegin insert at leastend insert $35 million to the states in order for the states to process evidence from sexual assault forensic exams.

Fiscal committee: no.

P1    1WHEREAS, Sexual violence continues to plague our nation
2and destroy lives, and all members of society are vulnerable to this
3crime regardless of race, age, gender, ability, or social standing,
4but some groups are especially at risk; and

5WHEREAS, Women and girls are the vast majority of victims,
6and nearly one in five women, or about 22 million, have been raped
7during their lifetimes; and

8WHEREAS, Men and boys are also at risk, and one in 71 men,
9or about 1.6 million, have been raped during their lifetimes; and

P2    1WHEREAS, Women of all races are targeted, but some are more
2vulnerable than others. Thirty-three and one-half percent of
3multiracial women and 27 percent of American Indian and Alaska
4Native women have been raped, compared to 15 percent of
5Hispanic women, 19 percent of non-Hispanic white women, and
622 percent of African American women; and

7WHEREAS, Young people are especially at risk, with nearly
8one-half of all female rape survivors being raped before 18 years
9of age, and over one-quarter of male rape survivors being raped
10before 10 years of age. College students are particularly vulnerable,
11with one in five women being sexually assaulted while in college;
12and

13WHEREAS, Repeat victimization is common: over one-third
14of women who were raped as minors are also raped as adults; and

15WHEREAS, Survivors of sexual assault deserve competent and
16compassionate care; and

17WHEREAS, Effective collection of forensic evidence is of
18paramount importance to successfully prosecuting sex offenders,
19as is performing sexual assault forensic exams in a sensitive,
20dignified, and victim-centered manner; and

21WHEREAS, Sexual assault forensic examinations are intrusive,
22lengthy, and complex medical examinations that take an average
23of three to four hours; and

24WHEREAS, A victim who agrees to a sexual assault forensic
25exam reasonably expects evidence collected from that exam, also
26referred to as a rape kit, to be analyzed. Untested evidence from
27a sexual assault forensic exam means lost opportunities to develop
28DNA profiles, search for matches, link cold cases, and bring justice
29and resolution to the victim; and

30WHEREAS, DNA can help identify unknown offenders, but
31most sexual assaults are committed by persons known to the victim,
32and, therefore, identity of the offender is not an issue in most sexual
33assault cases. However, testing evidence from a sexual assault
34forensic exam in those cases still has evidentiary value because a
35DNA profile from the known suspect can yield matches with other
36cases in which the suspect is unknown, resulting in “cold hits”
37connecting the known suspect to other crimes; and

38WHEREAS, Tens of thousands, and possibly over 100,000,
39rape kits are likely sitting unprocessed in California crime labs
40and law enforcement evidence lockers; and

P3    1WHEREAS, There is no statewide data, but local studies provide
2insight into the scope of the problem. In 2008, Los Angeles County
3had more than 12,000 untested rape kits in its custody, and in 2012,
4Alameda County estimated their backlog of untested rape kits to
5be almost 2,000; and

6WHEREAS, Delays in testing evidence collected from a sexual
7assault forensic exam can also preclude criminal charges from ever
8being filed against alleged rapists who are identified long after
9their crimes. Current state law provides a 10-years statute of
10limitation for most rape cases, but has an exception allowing
11criminal charges to be filed within one year of the date when a
12suspect is conclusively identified in cases involving DNA evidence,
13as long as the DNA is analyzed within two years of the crime; and

14WHEREAS, Failure to test evidence collected from a sexual
15assault forensic exam in a timely manner can be tragic, from
16expired statutes of limitation that preclude prosecution even if a
17suspect is later identified, to additional rape and murder victims
18of serial rapists; and

19WHEREAS, Local jurisdictions that have implemented
20mandatory testing policies for evidence collected from a sexual
21assault forensic exam have impressive results to show for their
22efforts. New York City tested 17,000 backlogged rape kits in 2003
23and implemented a policy to test every rape kit in law enforcement
24custody, which led to 2,000 DNA matches, 200 cold case
25prosecutions, and an increase in the arrest rate for the crime of
26rape from 40 percent to 70 percent, compared to 24 percent
27nationally. Detroit, Michigan began testing a backlog of over
2811,000 untested rape kits, and has testedbegin delete 1,404end deletebegin insert more than 2,000end insert
29 kitsbegin insert,end insert resulting inbegin delete 238end deletebegin insert over 500end insert hits in the Combined DNA Index
30System (CODIS). These CODIS matches have identifiedbegin delete 46end deletebegin insert more
31than 100end insert
potential serial rapists who are tied to rapes reported in
32begin delete 12end deletebegin insert at least a dozenend insert other states and the District of Columbia. In
332003, Fort Worth, Texas began processing their backlog, which
34led to 200 DNA matches in CODIS, and to 47 arrests, 36 felony
35 convictions, and the apprehension of five serial rapists; and

36WHEREAS, Federal studies demonstrate thatbegin delete crimesend deletebegin insert crimeend insert labs
37have struggled over the past decade to meet the demand for DNA
38testing for all types of crimes. Crime labs were able to process 10
39percent more cases in 2011 than in 2009, but they also received
4016.4 percent more requests for DNA testing in that time. With
P4    1demand continuing to outpace capacity, the backlog in testing
2evidence collected from sexual assault forensic exams may
3continue to grow; and

4WHEREAS, Processing evidence collected from a sexual assault
5forensic exam is not enough, because when jurisdictions process
6large volumes of evidence collected from a sexual assault forensic
7exam, they also need the resources to follow up on the leads, which
8requires trained detectives, victim advocates, and prosecutors
9available and willing to work together to pursue the new cases;
10and

11WHEREAS, California is committed to enacting systematic
12reforms to address, once and for all, the backlog of evidence
13collected from a sexual assault forensic exam through the
14combination of new screening techniques that have been proven
15by the state crime laboratory, which is operated by the Department
16of Justice, greater resources for law enforcement agencies, and a
17cooperative effort to provide justice to all survivors of sexual
18assault. Federal funding is crucial to help California put these new
19initiatives in place to address this problem; now, therefore, be it

20Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of
21California, jointly,
That the Legislature urges the United States
22Congress tobegin delete approve President Obama’s proposal toend delete providebegin insert at
23leastend insert
$35 million to the states in order for the states to process
24evidence from sexual assault forensic exams; and be it further

25Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
26of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United
27States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the
28Majority Leader of the Senate, to each Senator and Representative
29from California in the Congress of the United States, and to the
30author for appropriate distribution.



O

    98