BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 939
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2014
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 939 (Block) - As Amended: May 21, 2014
SUMMARY : Permits the consolidation of human-trafficking-related
charges occurring in different counties into a single trial if
all involved jurisdictions agree. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows cases involving human trafficking, pimping, and
pandering that occur in different jurisdictions to be joined
in a single trial if all the district attorneys agree.
2)Provides that consolidation of the cases is subject to a
joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed
trial.
3)Requires the prosecution to present written evidence that all
district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the
offenses agree to the venue.
4)Requires charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is no
written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to
that county.
5)Deletes existing language in Penal Code section 784.8 relating
to the consolidation of human trafficking cases occurring in
different counties.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that, except as otherwise provided by law, the
jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court
within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed.
(Pen. Code, � 777.)
2)States that when a public offense is committed in part in one
jurisdictional territory and in part in another, the
jurisdiction of such offense is in any competent court within
either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, � 781.)
SB 939
Page 2
3)Provides that when charges alleging multiple violations of
human trafficking that involve the same victim or victims in
multiple territorial jurisdictions are filed in one county,
the courts shall hold a hearing to consider whether the matter
should proceed in the county of filing or whether one or more
counts should be severed. The district attorney in each
county shall agree that the matter should proceed in the
county of filing. The court shall consider the location and
complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the
offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people
and the convenience to the victim or victims in deciding
whether to hear all the complaints in one county. (Pen. Code
� 784.8.)
4)Provides that if one or more violations of specified sex
offenses occur in more than one jurisdictional territory, the
jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses
properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction
where at least one of the offenses occurred if all the
district attorneys agree to the venue. (Pen. Code, � 784.7,
subd. (a).)
5)Provides that if specified domestic violence offenses occurred
in more than one jurisdiction, and the defendant and the
victim are the same for all the offenses, the jurisdiction of
any of the offenses and for any offenses properly joinable
with that offense is the jurisdiction where at least one of
the offenses occurred. (Pen. Code, � 784.7, subd. (b).)
6)Allows property crimes occurring in one jurisdictional
territory where property is taken to another jurisdictional
territory and an arrest is made there, to be prosecuted in
either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, � 786.)
7)Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not
relate to same transaction or event where there is common
element of substantial importance in their commission, such as
the same class of crimes. (Pen. Code, � 954.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Human
SB 939
Page 3
trafficking, pimping, and pandering are not limited to one
jurisdiction. By the crimes' very nature, the victims can be
exploited over and over again, wherever there is demand.
Additionally, perpetrators frequently move across
jurisdictional lines to avoid apprehension. SB 939 allows the
prosecution of human trafficking and its related offenses to
capture the transitory nature of these heinous crimes. Most
importantly, SB 939 helps victims by not subjecting them to
multiple trials. Currently, the same victim would be either a
primary witness or supporting witness in each trial to show
the same mode of operation, criminal intent, or other related
evidence. SB 939 would minimize the trauma of testifying in
multiple court proceedings for these victims. Finally,
consolidating these charges into a single trial is cost
effective for our court system."
2)Venue and Vicinage : Venue refers to the territorial
jurisdiction in which a case may be brought to trial, in other
words, the location where the trial is held. Vicinage is the
right to trial by a jury drawn from residents of the area in
which the charged offense allegedly was committed.
In Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, the
California Supreme Court explained these concepts as applied
to criminal prosecutions.
The concepts of venue and vicinage are closely
related, as a jury pool ordinarily is selected from
the area in which the trial is to be held. The
concepts have different origins and purposes, however.
Venue is historically significant from a national
perspective because, as discussed below, the
pre-Revolutionary practice of transporting colonists
who were charged with crimes in the colonies to either
England or other English colonies for trial was among
the principal complaints of the colonists against
England. Objections to that practice led to the
inclusion of Article III, Section 2 in the United
States Constitution. That provision limits the place
of trial in federal criminal proceedings to the state
in which the crime was committed. Most California
venue statutes serve a similar purpose in reducing the
potential burden on a defendant who might otherwise be
required to stand trial in a distant location that is
not reasonably related to the alleged criminal
SB 939
Page 4
conduct.
. . . [T]he general rule of territorial jurisdiction
over felonies is that stated in section 777: "except
as otherwise provided by law the jurisdiction of every
public offense is in any competent court within the
jurisdictional territory of which it is committed."
Ordinarily the jurisdictional territory of a superior
court is the county in which it sits. (� 691, subd.
(b).) Venue or territorial jurisdiction establishes
the proper place for trial, but is not an aspect of
the fundamental subject matter jurisdiction of the
court and does not affect the power of a court to try
a case.
When the Legislature creates an exception to the rule
of section 777, the venue statute is remedial and for
that reason is construed liberally to achieve the
legislative purpose of expanding criminal
jurisdiction. Section 784.7 is such an exception and
the legislative purpose is clear. (People v. Price,
supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 1054-1056, internal citations
omitted.)
As to the right of vicinage, the Supreme Court explained:
Because a vicinage guarantee does not serve the purpose
of protecting a criminal defendant from government
oppression and is not necessary to ensure a fair trial,
it is not a necessary feature of the right to jury
trial. For that reason we conclude that the vicinage
clause of the Sixth Amendment is not applicable to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (People v.
Price, supra, 25 Cal. 4th p. at 1065.)
Rather, the Court explained, the right of vicinage in
California is derived from the right to a jury trial
guaranteed in the California Constitution and is effectively
limited to a requirement that there be a reasonable nexus
between the crime and the county of trial:
The right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage, as
guaranteed by the California Constitution, is not
violated by trial in county having a reasonable
relationship to the offense or to other crimes
SB 939
Page 5
committed by the defendant against the same victim.
We do not hold here that a crime may be tried
anywhere. The Legislature's power to designate the
place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by
the requirement that there be a reasonable
relationship or nexus between the place designated for
trial and the commission of the offense. Repeated
abuse of the same child or spouse in more than one
county creates that nexus. The venue authorized by
Penal Code section 784.7 is not arbitrary. It is
reasonable for the Legislature to conclude that this
pattern of conduct is akin to a continuing offense and
to conclude that the victim and other witnesses should
not be burdened with having to testify in multiple
trials in different counties. (People v. Price,
supra, 25 Cal.4th. at p. 1075, emphasis added.)
The Legislature has created several exceptions to the
rule that the territorial jurisdiction of the case is
where the offense occurred. These exceptions include
sex crimes, domestic violence, child abuse, and human
trafficking cases.
This bill adds the crimes of pimping and pandering to
the exceptions to the general rule regarding venue. The
rationale for this is that pimping and pandering are
offenses related to human trafficking.
3)Pimping and Pandering : According to the Polaris Project,
"Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery where
people profit from the control and exploitation of others. As
defined under U.S. federal law, victims of human trafficking
include children involved in the sex trade, adults age 18 or
over who are coerced or deceived into commercial sex acts, and
anyone forced into different forms of 'labor or services,'
such as domestic workers held in a home, or farm-workers
forced to labor against their will. The factors that each of
these situations have in common are elements of force, fraud,
or coercion that are used to control people."
(< http://www.polarisproject.org/human-trafficking/overview >.)
Pimping under California law means receiving compensation from
the solicitation of a known prostitute. (Pen. Code, � 266h.)
SB 939
Page 6
Whereas pandering means procuring another person for the
purpose of prostitution by intentionally encouraging or
persuading that person to become or continue being a
prostitute. (Pen. Code, � 266i.) Oftentimes, pimps use
mental, emotional, and physical abuse to keep their
prostitutes generating money. Consequently, there has been a
paradigm shift where pimping and pandering is now viewed as
possible human trafficking.
This new approach has been criticized by some because it blurs
the line between human trafficking and prostitution. Sex
workers say it discounts their ability to willingly work in
the sex industry. (See Nevada Movement Draws the Line on
Human Trafficking by Tom Ragan, Las Vegas Review Journal, May
26, 2013, <
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/nevada-movement-dra
ws-line-human-trafficking >.) In this respect, it should be
noted that this bill does not include the offense of
prostitution for purposes of joining cases occurring in
different counties.
4)Deleting the Requirement that Cases Involve the Same Victim or
Victims : The current statute allowing for consolidation human
trafficking offenses occurring in different counties has a
requirement that the consolidated offenses involve the same
victim or victims. (Pen. Code, � 784.8.) This bill deletes
that requirement.
In 2002, the Legislature removed the "same victim or victims"
requirement for sex cases. The purpose was to limit the
number of court appearances for victims in serial sexual
assault cases involving multiple counties. The rationale was
that if a defendant was charged with multiple sex crimes
involving different victims in a number of different counties,
the ability to introduce propensity evidence under Evidence
Code Section 1108 makes it very likely that multiple victims
will testify in any county that chooses to prosecute the
defendant.
There is no similar propensity evidence provision applicable
to the crimes of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering.
However, arguably the testimony of unrelated victims might be
relevant under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b),
which allows evidence of uncharged crimes to prove motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
SB 939
Page 7
absence of mistake or accident.
Under current law, when considering whether to join multiple
human trafficking offenses occurring in different places, the
court is required to consider, inter alia, the convenience of,
or hardship to, the victim or victims and witnesses. This
bill removes that explicit consideration. It seems that
consideration of the convenience or hardship to the victims
and witnesses would be even more important in the situation
where the offenses did not involve the same victims. Should
convenience or hardship to the victims and witnesses be made
an explicit consideration?
5)Argument in Support : According to the Alameda County District
Attorney's Office , a co-sponsor of this bill, Current law,
Penal Code 784.7(a) states that when more than one violation
of sexual assault, rape, child molestation, or similar charges
occur in multiple jurisdictions, all of the charges may be
prosecuted in one jurisdiction where one of the crimes
occurred. In order to consolidate, the law stipulates that
there must be a written agreement to the venue for each
district attorney and that the charges are properly joinable.
"SB 939 simply mirrors Penal Code 784.7(a) and creates the same
consolidated trial process for human trafficking, pimping,
pandering, and properly joinable charges. Currently, these
crimes must be prosecuted in each jurisdiction where the crime
occurred. This often results in excessive trauma and travel
for victims, unnecessary costs to our court system, and
complicated prosecution of human trafficking related crimes.
"Human trafficking, pimping, and pandering, are not limited to
one jurisdiction. By the crimes' very nature, the victims can
be exploited wherever there is demand. Perpetrators
frequently move across jurisdictional lines to avoid
apprehension. This bill helps victims by not subjecting them
to multiple trials because they are usually the primary
witness or a supporting witness in each trial to show the same
mode of operation, criminal intent, or other relevant
evidence."
6)Related Legislation :
a) AB 1585 (Alejo) provides that a defendant who has been
convicted of solicitation or prostitution may petition the
SB 939
Page 8
court to set aside the conviction if the defendant can
establish by clear and convincing evidence that the
conviction was the result of his or her status as a victim
of human trafficking. AB 1585 is pending hearing in the
Senate Public Safety Committee.
b) AB 1610 (Bonta) allows for the conditional examination
of a witness in human trafficking cases, as specified. AB
1610 is pending hearing in the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
7)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1278 (Lieber), Chapter 258, Statutes of 2008,
authorized district attorneys to consolidate charges of
human trafficking that involve the same victim or victims
that occurred in multiple jurisdictions.
b) AB 2352 (Cohn), Chapter 194, Statutes of 2002, amended
territorial jurisdiction of sex crimes to remove the
requirement that consolidated offenses involve a single
victim, and added specified crimes to the list of
applicable charges.
c) AB 2374 (Pacheco), Chapter 302, Statutes of 1998, vested
territorial jurisdiction for specified sex crimes occurring
in multiple jurisdictions in any jurisdiction where at
least one offense occurred, if the defendant and the victim
were the same for all the offenses.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alameda County District Attorney (Co-Sponsor)
Orange County District Attorney (Co-Sponsor)
Riverside County District Attorney (Co-Sponsor)
San Diego County District Attorney (Co-Sponsor)
California Against Slavery
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
SB 939
Page 9
Chief Probation Officers of California
Crime Victims United of California
Crittenton Services for Children and Families
Concerned Women for America of California
County of Los Angeles
County of San Diego
Junior League of California
Junior League of San Diego
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
North County Human Trafficking Task Force
Peace Officers Research Association of California
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744