BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                         SB 59|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                 UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 59
          Author:   Evans (D), et al.
          Amended:  7/3/13
          Vote:     27 - Urgency

           
           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE  :  6-0, 2/26/13
          AYES:  Hancock, Anderson, Block, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  De Le�n

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  7-0, 4/08/13
          AYES:  De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg

           SENATE FLOOR :  38-0, 4/22/13
          AYES:  Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Calderon, Cannella,  
            Corbett, Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Evans, Fuller,  
            Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff,  
            Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Nielsen,  
            Padilla, Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Walters, Wolk,  
            Wright, Wyland, Yee
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Vacancy, Vacancy

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  78-0, 8/22/13 (Consent) - See last page for  
            vote


           SUBJECT  :    Crimes:  sex crimes

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill expands the definition of oral copulation  
          and sexual penetration sex crimes committed by fraud or  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 59
                                                                     Page  
          2

          impersonation to include the occurrence where an individual  
          submits under the belief that a person committing the act is  
          someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this  
          belief is induced by artifice, pretense, or concealment by the  
          perpetrator, with the intent to induce the victim's belief. 

           Assembly Amendments  limit this bill to oral copulation and  
          sexual penetration, as it pertains to sex crimes by removing  
          "victim's spouse" from current statue and replacing it with  
          "someone known to the victim other than the accused," leaving  
          rape and sodomy to AB 65 (Achadjian).  The authors introduced  
          similar bills and this amendment divides the subject matter.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:

          1.Provides that any person who commits an act of sexual  
            penetration when the victim submits under the belief that the  
            person committing the act or causing the act to be committed  
            is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any  
            artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused,  
            with intent to induce the belief, shall be punished by  
            imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six,  
            or eight years.

          2.Provides that any person who commits an act of oral  
            copulation, where the victim submits under the belief that the  
            person committing the act is the victim's spouse, and this  
            belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment  
            practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief,  
            shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a  
            period of three, six, or eight years.

          This bill expands the definition of oral copulation and sexual  
          penetration sex crimes committed by fraud or impersonation to  
          include the occurrence where an individual submits under the  
          belief that a person committing the act is someone known to the  
          victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by  
          artifice, pretense, or concealment by the perpetrator, with the  
          intent to induce the victim's belief.

           Background
           

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 59
                                                                     Page  
          3

          This bill was prompted by the well-publicized reversal of the  
          rape conviction of Julio Morales.  (People v. Morales (2013) 212  
          Cal.App.4th 583.)  Morales was charged with and convicted of  
          rape of an unconscious person.  The prosecution's theory of the  
          case was that Morales had intercourse with the victim while she  
          was asleep.  (The victim is called "Jane Doe" in the opinion.)   
          The 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed Morales' conviction  
          because the jury could have convicted him on the invalid theory  
          that he had induced the victim to believe that he was her  
          boyfriend.

          The appellate court found that there was ample evidence to  
          convict Morales of rape under the prosecution's theory that  
          Morales had intercourse with the victim while she was asleep.   
          The court ordered that Morales be retried on this basis.  The  
          jury instructions allowed the jury to convict Morales of rape on  
          the invalid basis that Morales was able to engage in intercourse  
          with the victim because he induced her to believe that he was  
          her boyfriend.  The invalid theory arose because Morales claimed  
          that the victim was awake when they began having intercourse and  
          that she likely believed he was her boyfriend.  The prosecutor  
          then argued to the jurors that even if they believed Morales, he  
          was still guilty of rape by fraud.  However, under existing  
          California law, it is not rape for a person to induce a woman to  
          have sexual intercourse with him by posing as her boyfriend.   
          Under such circumstances, the perpetrator is guilty of rape only  
          where he induces or leads the victim to believe that he is her  
          spouse.  (People v. Morales, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th 583,  
          586-587, 589-597.)

           Prior Legislation
           
          AB 765 (Achadjian, 2011) would have expanded the definition of  
          "rape by fraud" to include submission of the victim to sexual  
          intercourse under the belief that the perpetrator was a  
          cohabitant.  AB 765 was held in the Senate Public Safety  
          Committee.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

           Potential minor near-term increase in state incarceration  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 59
                                                                     Page  
          4

            costs, likely less than $25,000 (General Fund) annually, for  
            increased state prison commitments to the extent expanding the  
            definition of specified crimes results in additional felony  
            convictions.  Out-year costs could potentially be greater due  
            to the cumulative cost effect of overlapping base sentence  
            terms, parole, and/or sentence enhancements applicable to the  
            specified crimes. 

           Potential future cost pressure of $60,000 (General Fund) per  
            prison commitment per year to the extent the long-term impact  
            of pending legislation considered in aggregate affects the  
            state prison population to a degree that undermines the  
            state's ability to reduce or sustain prison overcrowding below  
            the federal court-imposed population limit.

           Likely minor impact to state trial court workload incurred by  
            the Judicial Branch to the extent the provisions of this bill  
            result in additional felony court filings and related court  
            time.

           Minor, absorbable workload impact to the DOJ associated with  
            increased sex offender registration.

           Minor non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs, offset to  
            a degree by minor fine revenue.

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/22/13)

          Attorney General Kamala Harris
          AFSCME
          California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
          California District Attorney's Office
          California Legislative Women's Caucus
          California Partnership to End Violence
          California Police Chiefs Association
          California State Sheriffs' Association
          California Women Lawyers
          Chief Probation Officers of California
          City Council and Commission on the Status of Women of the City  
          of Glendale
          City of Berkeley
          City of West Hollywood
          Crime Victims United of California
          Humboldt County District Attorney

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 59
                                                                     Page  
          5

          Junior Leagues of California
          Marin County District Attorney
          Napa County District Attorney
          Napa Emergency Women's Services
          National Association of Social Workers
          Peace Officers Research Association of California
          Peace Over Violence
          Planned Parenthood
          San Bernardino County Sheriff
          Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women


           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author, this bill,  
          "updates the arcane language contained in various sections of  
          the California Penal Codes by substituting and defining the new  
          term of 'someone known to the victim other that the accused' in  
          place of the term 'spouse.'  Doing so would expand the  
          definition to include single individuals, domestic partners and  
          individuals currently excluded by the narrow use of the term  
          'spouse.'  This bill creates equity within the law."

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 78-0, 08/22/13
          AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian  
            Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,  
            Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,  
            Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,  
            Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,  
            Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,  
            Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell,  
            Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson,  
            Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas,  
            Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski,  
            Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy, Vacancy


          JG:nl  8/23/13   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****



                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                      SB 59
                                                                     Page  
          6














































                                                                CONTINUED