BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2673
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2673 (Bradford) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Prohibits civil compromise in criminal cases in which
a driver has left the scene of an accident resulting in injury
to another person, or death of another person without stopping
his or her vehicle.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States when the person injured by an act constituting a
misdemeanor has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be
compromised, as provided in existing law, except when the
offense is committed as follows:
a) By or upon an officer of justice, while in the execution
of the duties of his or her office.
b) Riotously.
c) With an intent to commit a felony.
d) In violation of any court order as described in existing
law relating to domestic violence.
e) By or upon any family or household member, or upon any
person when the violation involves any person described in
the Family Code.
f) Upon an elder, in violation of provisions of law
prohibiting elder abuse.
g) Upon a child, as prohibited in statutes relating to
annoying or molesting a child. (Pen. Code, � 1377, subds.
(a) - (g).)
2)Provides if the person injured appears before the court in
AB 2673
Page 2
which the action is pending at any time before trial, and
acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for the injury,
the court may, in its discretion, on payment of the costs
incurred, order all proceedings to be stayed upon the
prosecution, and the defendant to be discharged therefrom; but
in such case, the reasons for the order must be set forth
therein and entered on the minutes. The order is a bar to
another prosecution for the same offense. (Pen. Code, �
1378.)
3)Provides that the driver of any vehicle involved in an
accident resulting in damage to any property, including
vehicle, shall immediately stop the vehicle and exchange
information, as specified, or leave in a conspicuous place on
the vehicle or other property damaged written notice giving
the name and address of the driver of the vehicle involved,
and the failure to comply with these requirements is a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to
exceed six months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by
both a fine and imprisonment. (Veh. Code, � 20002.)
4)Requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident
resulting in injury to any person, other than himself or
herself, or in the death of any person shall immediately stop
the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill
specified requirements, and the failure to comply is a
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for16 months,
two, or three years or, by imprisonment in a county jail not
to exceed one year, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor
more than $10,000, or by both a fine and imprisonment. If the
accident results in death or permanent, serious injury, the
offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less
than 90 days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less
than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by both a fine and
imprisonment. (Veh. Code, � 20001, subds. (a) & (b).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "There has been
a growing hit-and-run epidemic across the state. This trend
has been more pronounce in the Los Angeles area. The Los
Angeles Police Department recently reported that roughly
AB 2673
Page 3
20,000 hit-and-run collisions are reported annually in the
City of Los Angeles.
"These incidents made up an astonishing 48 percent of all
vehicle crashes in 2009, compared to an average rate of just
11 percent nationwide.
"Of those, only about 20% or 4,000 of these incidents are
successfully investigated and presented for prosecution.
Because so few offenders are actually caught, it is important
to create a real deterrent. We must do what we can to remove
the incentive to flee.
"AB 2673 would remove the option of civil compromises from
motorists who flee the scene of a traffic collision involving
bodily injury. Motorists who drive away after hurting someone
should not be allowed to simply write a check when finally
caught.
"This bill will provide justice for those victims of hit-and-run
whose perpetrators often get off with little or no punishment
for no reason other than that the victim's injuries were not
deemed serious enough."
2)Civil Compromise : An act can give rise to both criminal and
civil liability. In cases of specified misdemeanor offenses,
California allows for "civil compromise," whereby criminal
liability may be avoided if the civil claim arising out of the
purported offense is settled to the satisfaction of the
victim. Civil compromise may only be granted where the victim
and the People are satisfied with the remedy. The victim must
acknowledge receipt of the compensation and his or her
satisfaction before civil compromise may be granted. (Pen.
Code, � 1378.) However, existing law does not allow for civil
compromise in cases where the crime is committed: upon a
peace officer in the execution of his or her duties;
riotously; with the intent to commit a felony; in violation of
a domestic violence court order; or a crime of domestic
violence, elder abuse or annoying or molesting a child. (Pen.
Code, � 1377, subds. (a) - (g).] But as a general matter,
privately settling civil claims arising out of a crime will
not ordinarily bar a prosecution because a crime is, by
definition, a public wrong and a breach of the "public rights
and duties, due to the whole community, considered as a
community, in its social aggregate capacity. (Dressler,
AB 2673
Page 4
Understanding Criminal Law, 2nd Ed. (1995).)
"In addition to providing compensation to victims, civil
compromise checks the great discretionary power of the police
and the prosecutor in deciding whether to arrest and
prosecute. Civil compromise also furthers administrative
efficiency by resolving relatively minor disputes and
eliminating the need for both civil and criminal proceedings."
(Creason, Eliminating the Use of Civil Compromise in Cases of
Domestic Violence, Elder Abuse and Child Abuse, (1997) 29
McGeorge L. Rev. 641, 642.) "In enacting the civil compromise
statute, the Legislature intended to empower the trial court,
in its discretion, to compromise certain misdemeanor offenses
when a civil remedy is available to the victim, the victim
acknowledges before the court that he or she has received
satisfaction for the injury, and costs are paid. In order to
protect the public against abuses of discretion, the
Legislature requires that when the court exercises its
discretion to compromise the matter 'the reasons for the order
must be set forth therein, and entered on the minutes.' "
(People vs. Stephen (hereinafter Stephen) (1986) 182
Cal.App.3rd Supp. 14, 15.)
"The factual bases which justify the approval of a civil
compromise for certain misdemeanors necessarily include the
following determinations by the court: the misdemeanor
offense sought to be compromised falls within that class of
crimes subject to being compromised; that is, the victim had a
remedy by a civil action and no exception applies, such as the
offense was not committed with felonious intent, the victim
appeared before the court and acknowledged that he or she has
received satisfaction for the injury, and the defendant paid
the incurred costs. (Stephen at 23.)
Civil compromise has been an available remedy at law since 1852.
Between 1993 and 1997, the Legislature added several crimes
to the list of conduct for which civil compromise is not a
remedy, including crimes of domestic violence, a violation of
domestic violence restraining orders, elder abuse and
specified crimes against a child. (See AB 1500 (Speier),
Chapter 219, Statutes of 1993; SB 115 (Burton), Chapter 18,
Statutes of 1997; and SB 97 (Alpert), Chapter 243, Statutes of
1997.) All the listed crimes are crimes of violence and are
of the type that financial remuneration is not appropriate.
In sponsoring the legislation including domestic violence and
AB 2673
Page 5
elder abuse crimes, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
stated the "Legislature has increasingly accepted that
domestic violence is not just a private matter between two
parties. The harm caused by this violence refuses to be
neatly confined between the victim and the batterer. The
entire society is impacted: children . . . , neighbors,
police, hospital emergency rooms, co-workers, innocent
bystanders, Good Samaritans who intervene, and juvenile
offenders whose past exposure to violence often contributes to
their criminality." It makes sense to preclude civil
compromise in cases where violence is involved (even
misdemeanor conduct) because the victim may be bullied or
intimidated into the compromise. Also, a dollar amount is not
an effective remedy to physical or emotional abuse at the
hands of a loved one.
However, hit and run with property damage or minor injury are
the very types of crimes civil compromise is meant to resolve.
Civil compromise also allows the victim to be compensated
quickly and without court process. If the defendant is
convicted and a restitution order is filed, the victim may be
less likely to receive compensation because the defendant will
have to pay court costs and possibly lawyer fees. However, if
the property owner is interested in seeing the defendant
prosecuted, he or she does not have to agree to a civil
compromise. As mentioned above, civil compromise requires the
victim agree to the compromise. There is little point to a
civil compromise statute if it cannot be used for a crime like
hit and run.
3)Prior Legislation : AB 1767 (Ma), of the 2008 Legislative
Session, as introduced, prohibited civil compromise in cases
where a defendant was charged with misdemeanor vandalism. AB
1767 was substantially amended to authorize the City and
County to require a person who has committed an act of
vandalism by graffiti to perform 24 hours of community service
if the person engages in civil compromise.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 2673
Page 6
California District Attorneys Association
Opposition
Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public Defender
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744