BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
6
7
AB 2673 (Bradford) 3
As Amended May 6, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 2014
Penal Code
MK:mc
CIVIL COMPROMISE: HIT AND RUN
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles City Attorney's Office
Prior Legislation:AB 1500 (Speier) - Chapter 219, Stats. 1993
SB 115 (Burton) - Chapter 18, Stats. 1997
SB 97 (Alpert) - Chapter 243, Stats. 1997
Support: California District Attorney Association
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association; Taxpayers
for Improving Public Safety
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 1
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PROHIBIT CIVIL COMPROMISE IN CRIMINAL CASES IN WHICH
A DRIVER HAS LEFT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN THE INJURY
OR DEATH OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT STOPPING HIS OR HER VEHICLE?
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit civil compromise in
criminal cases in which a driver has left the scene of an
accident resulting in the injury or death of another person
without stopping his or her vehicle.
Existing law provides if the person injured appears before the
court in 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. (Penal Code, � 1378.)
Existing law 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. (Vehicle Code, � 20002.)
Existing law 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
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 3
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. (Vehicle Code, � 20001(a) & (b).)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code � 1377 (a)
- (g).)
This bill would add Vehicle Code Section 20001(a) to those
offenses which may not be civilly compromised.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 4
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 5
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 6
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Over the last five years in Los Angeles, more than
twice as many individuals were killed or severely
injured as a result of a hit and run collision than by
driving under the influence collisions. These hit and
run collisions cause substantial injury, expense and
economic loss throughout the State.
Unfortunately, the very nature of hit and run offenses
makes them difficult to successfully investigate. Only
20% of all hit and run crimes in the City of Los
Angeles are solved by the police.
Because so few individuals who commit hit and run
offenses are apprehended, it is important that those
who are caught face some meaningful sanction in order
to deter future unlawful conduct.
However, current law allows for individuals charged
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 7
with misdemeanor hit and run to have their charges
dismissed, even over the objections of the prosecution,
by entering into a civil compromise with the victim.
This civil compromise provision runs counter to a Board
of Police Commissioners report where the Los Angeles
Police Department identified a lack of significant
consequences as a reason individuals were not deterred
from committing hit and run crimes.
By outlawing the use of civil compromises this bill
will create a deterrent for hit and run violators
without increasing criminal penalties.
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. (Penal 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.
(Penal 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,
Understanding Criminal Law, 2nd Ed. (1995).)"
"In addition to providing compensation to victims, civil
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 8
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 elder abuse crimes, the Los
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 9
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.
3. Civil Compromise for Hit and Run
This bill would prohibit a civil compromise for a hit and run
where there has been injury and or death.
Civil compromise 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. Since this bill was
narrowed in the Assembly to just apply to cases where there is
injury or death, there are not going to be that many cases that
can be civilly compromised because many of the cases will have
felony charges in addition to the hit and run and thus the case
could not be civilly compromised. In these cases where the
accident did not give rise to a felony, if the injured party 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.
Should the victim of the hit-and-run be able to have say in
whether the person should be criminally prosecuted?
(More)
4. Support
According to the sponsor, the Los Angeles City Attorney's
Office:
Hit-and-run collisions have become a significant issue
in the City of Los Angeles over the last few years.
While a majority of hit-and-runs involve only vehicle
and do not result injuries or deaths, a significant
number of hit-and-runs involve pedestrians and
bicyclists, who are often injures as a result. Between
2007 and 2011, there was an average of 22 severe or
fatal hit-and run collisions involving bicycles and 92
involving pedestrians each year. While a hit-and-run
is a serious offense, the current penalties for this
crime often do not work as an effective deterrent or
punishment.
Legislation addressing this issue would help public
safety officers and local district attorney's officers
charged with investigating and trying hit-and run cases
to be more effectively deal with those who commit
hit-and runs. Many of the misdemeanor hit-and-run
cases that were filed in the LA City Attorney's Office
were resolved through the use of civil compromise.
Often the consequences agreed to under civil compromise
were no different than if a driver had not left the
scene after a collision.
Motorists that flee the scene of a traffic collision
commit a crime against the public as well against the
other motorist. If the other party to the accident was
injured as a result of the accident, the driver who
fled should not be allowed to enter into a civil
compromise.
5. Opposition
The California Public Defenders Association notes that
(More)
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 11
hit-and-run is exactly the type of case that civil compromise is
designed for stating:
Hit-and-run is a crime simply because that act makes it
harder to establish civil liability, the identity of
those involved, and to reach an effective resolution
either through the courts or through the intervention
of insurance companies. Case law has repeatedly held
that fault for the accident is not an issue in
hit-and-run cases, and that a faultless driver can
nonetheless be prosecuted if he does not stop and
exchange information. Since hit-and-run is all about
enabling the civil liability process and the civil
compromise statutes (PC 1377-1378) are all about
washing out minor criminal actions that have a civil
liability counterpart, it should be apparent that civil
compromise could not be more appropriate for any crime
than hit-and-run. Certainly, hit-and-run does not
involve the sort of attacks on public order or
vulnerable victims that are mentioned in the exclusions
to civil compromise, and it is rarely felonious.
If the defendant is convicted he may be ordered to pay
restitution, but if he is indigent the courts cannot
penalize him for not paying money that he doesn't have.
Indeed, lack of insurance and money is a common reason
for drivers to flee the scene of an accident. On the
other hand, if a defendant is motivated by the prospect
of civil compromise he can often come up with sources
of funds, such as loans from friends or family, that
cannot be compelled by a court. It must also be
recognized that the defendant does not get a "freebie"
when he gets a civil compromise. Not only does he have
to pay the "full satisfaction" (i.e. damages), but
under the mandate of section 1378 he is responsible for
"payment of costs incurred," which many courts consider
to include court costs and prosecution costs.
Moreover, even without a conviction, the police will
report his involvement in an accident to the DMV which,
AB 2673 (Bradford)
Page 12
if "chargeable," will count as a point against his
driver's license and will affect the cost of his
insurance. Civil compromise was devised as a means to
resolve minor offenses that have a civil damages
component in a way that is cheaper for the courts,
cheaper for the prosecution, makes the victim whole
quicker, and incentivizes the defendant to pay sooner
rather than later. Thus, the process becomes a win -
win - win - win situation that benefits everyone.
***************