BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1900|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1900
Author: Quirk (D)
Amended: 3/27/14 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/10/14
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De Le�n, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Mitchell
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Victims of sex crimes: video recording of testimony
SOURCE : Alameda County District Attorney
DIGEST : This bill makes a technical change to modernize the
recording and preservation requirements of admissible, recorded
court testimony by replacing the term videotape" with "video
recording."
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides that when a defendant is charged with specified sex
offenses, child abuse, lewd and lascivious acts on a child,
CONTINUED
AB 1900
Page
2
and the victim either is a person 15 years of age or less or
is developmentally disabled as a result of an intellectual
disability, as specified, the people may apply for an order
that the victim's testimony at the preliminary hearing, in
addition to being stenographically recorded, be recorded and
preserved on videotape.
2.Establishes that a videotape prepared for court testimony is
subject to a protective order of the court to protect the
privacy of the victim and must be made available to the
prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and his/her attorney for
viewing during business hours. The videotape is to be
destroyed five years from the date of judgment, unless an
appeal is filed.
3.Provides that when a defendant is charged with spousal rape or
infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic injury
to a spouse, former spouse, or domestic partner, the people
may apply for an order that the victim's testimony at the
preliminary hearing, in addition to being stenographically
recorded, be recorded and preserved on videotape. If the
victim's testimony at the preliminary hearing is admissible,
the videotape recording may be introduced as evidence at
trial.
4.Provides that when a defendant is charged with a sexual or
otherwise specified offense upon an adult or child with a
disability, the court may use its discretion to make
accommodations to support the victim, and the prosecutor may
apply for an order that the testimony of the person with a
disability at the preliminary hearing, in addition to being
stenographically recorded, be recorded and preserved on
videotape.
This bill makes a technical change to specified recording and
preservation requirements by replacing the term "videotape" with
"video recording."
Comments
According to the author:
AB 249 (Cunneen) Chapter 19, Statutes of 1997 authorized
video-recorded witness testimony to be used at trial.
CONTINUED
AB 1900
Page
3
Allowing for testimony to be recorded guaranteed that, even if
the victim could not appear at trial due to an unforeseen
circumstance, the jury would still be able to hear the
victim's testimony and understand the impact the crime had on
the victim. For example, the author of AB 249 noted that the
legislation was necessary for several reasons including the
reality that elderly witnesses may not outlive the length of
the trial.
Technology is changing at a rapid rate. California's Penal
Code contains references to outdated technology that needs
updating.
There are several references to "videotape" in the Penal Code
as it relates to the showing of recorded testimony of a victim
of sexual assault. This can create a complication for the
District Attorney (DA) when prosecuting certain sexual assault
cases. In order to use something different than a videotape
during a trial, the DA's office needs to ask the defense for a
stipulation regarding this requirement.
AB 1900 changes the word "videotape" in certain sections of
the California Penal Code to "video-recording" to enable the
DA's office to officially use modern video-recordings of
testimony during trial.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/20/14)
Alameda County District Attorney (source)
California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
SEIU California
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
CONTINUED
AB 1900
Page
4
Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nestande, Olsen, Pan,
Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gray, Harkey, Mansoor, Nazarian, Vacancy
JG:nl 6/23/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED