BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 950
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 24, 2014
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 950 (Torres) - As Amended: June 11, 2014
SUMMARY : Tolls the statute of limitations for the commencement
of a criminal action until the discovery of the offenses of
giving, offering, asking, receiving, or agreeing to a bribe by a
public official or public employee.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that prosecution for an offense not punishable by
death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment in the state prison
shall be commenced within one year of the offense, unless
otherwise specified. (Pen. Code, � 802 subd. (a).)
2)States that prosecution for an offense punishable by
imprisonment in state prison or pursuant to subdivision (h) of
section 1170 shall be commenced within three years of the
offense, unless otherwise specified. (Pen. Code, � 801.)
3)Provides that prosecution for crimes punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for eight years or more must
be commenced within six years after commission of the offense.
(Pen. Code, � 800.)
4)States notwithstanding any other limitation of time prescribed
in this chapter, prosecution for a violation of production of
child pornography shall commence within 10 years of the date
of production of the pornographic material. (Pen. Code, �
801.2)
5)Provides that prosecution for specified offenses punishable by
imprisonment in state prison relating to fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, theft or embezzlement upon an elder or
dependent adult, or official misconduct must be commenced
within four years after discovery of the commission of the
offense or within four years after the completion of the
offense, whichever is later. (Pen. Code, �� 801.5 and 803
SB 950
Page 2
subd.(c).)
6)Provides that prosecution for specified crimes against elder
or dependent adults, except in theft or embezzlement cases,
may be filed at any time within five years from the date of
occurrence of such offense. (Pen. Code, � 801.6.)
7)Provides that a criminal complaint may be filed within one
year after a report to a law enforcement agency that a person
was the victim of a sexual offense while under the age of 18
years. To file such a complaint, the applicable limitation
period must have expired and the alleged crime must have
involved substantial sexual conduct corroborated by evidence,
as specified. [Pen. Code, � 803 subds. (f)(1) & (h)(1).]
8)Provides notwithstanding any other limitation of time
described in this chapter, a criminal complaint may be filed
within one year of the date on which the identity of the
suspect is conclusively established by deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) testing if both of the following conditions are met:
a) The crime is one that is described in the sex offense
registration statute; and,
b) The offense was committed prior to January 1, 2001 and
biological evidence collected in connection with the
offense is analyzed for DNA type no later than January 1,
2004 or the offense was committed on or after January 1,
2001 and biological evidence collected in connection with
the offense is analyzed for DNA type no later than two
years from the date of the offense. (Pen. Code, � 803
subd. (g)(1)(A) and (B).0
9)Provides that notwithstanding any other limitation of time
described in this chapter, prosecution for a specified felony
sex offense that is alleged to have been committed when the
victim was under the age of 18 years may be commenced any time
prior to the victim's 28th birthday. [Pen. Code, � 801.1
subd. (a).)
10)Provides that notwithstanding any other limitation of time
described in this chapter, if existing law does not apply,
prosecution for a felony registerable sex offense shall be
commenced within 10 years after commission of the offense.
(Pen. Code, � 801.1 subd. (b).)
SB 950
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 950 tolls
the statute of limitations for giving or offering a bribe to a
public official or public employee.
"California's bribery laws are in need of updating. As local
governments struggle to stay out of the red during challenging
economic times and avoid bankruptcy, California residents are
entitled to equip prosecutors with all necessary charging
tools to prevent, pursue and prosecute the theft of public
funds or bribery of public officials.
"SB 950 will strengthen the laws governing bribery of public
officials and help bolster public trust in government."
2)Operation of the Statute of Limitations : The statute of
limitations requires commencement of a prosecution within a
certain period of time after the commission of a crime. A
prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment or
information, filing a complaint, certifying a case to superior
court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant. (Penal Code
Section 804.) If prosecution is not commenced within the
applicable period of limitation, it is a complete defense to
the charge. The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and
may be raised as a defense at any time before or after
judgment. [ People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13.] The
defense may only be waived under limited circumstances. [See
Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.]
3)Public Policy Reasoning Behind Statutes of Limitation :
Criminal statutes of limitations are laws that limit the time
during which a prosecution can be commenced. These statutes
have been in operation for over 350 years and are deeply
rooted in the American legal system. There are several
rationales underlying statutes of limitations. First, they
ensure that prosecutions are based upon reasonably fresh
evidence - the idea being that over time memories fade,
witnesses die or leave the area, and physical evidence becomes
more difficult to obtain, identify or preserve. In short, the
possibility of erroneous conviction is minimized when
SB 950
Page 4
prosecution is prompt. Second, statutes of limitations
encourage law enforcement officials to investigate suspected
criminal activity in a timely fashion. In addition, it is
thought that the statute of limitations may reduce the
possibility of blackmail based on threats to disclose
information to prosecutors or law enforcement officials.
Another rationale is that as time goes by, the likelihood
increases that an offender has reformed, making punishment
less necessary. In addition, society's retributive impulse
may lessen over time, making punishment less desirable.
Finally, there is the thought that statutes of limitations
provide an overall sense of security and stability to human
affairs. [Lauren Kerns, "Incorporating Tolling Provisions
into Sex Crimes Statute of Limitations", 13 Temple Policy and
Civil Rights Law Review, 325, 327; internal citation omitted.]
In 1984, the California Law Revision Commission published a
series of recommendations to revise the statute of
limitations. The impetus for reform derived from numerous
changes made to the statute by the Legislature. There were 11
legislative enactments amending the felony statute of
limitations in 14 years. The Commission commented, "This
simple scheme has been made complex by numerous modifications
. . . the result of this development is that the California
law is complex and filled with inconsistencies."
4)Case Law on the Statute of Limitations : Similar assessments
of the purpose of statute of limitations appear in case law.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that statutes of
limitations are the primary guarantee against bringing overly
stale criminal charges. [ United States v. Ewell (1966) 383
U.S. 116, 122, 15 L.Ed. 2d 627, 86 S.Ct. 773.] There is a
measure of predictability provided by specifying a limit
beyond which there is an irrebuttable presumption that a
defendant's right to a fair trial would be prejudiced. Such
laws reflect legislative assessments of relative interests of
the State and the defendant in administering and receiving
justice. The California Supreme Court in People v. Zamora
(1976) 18 Cal. 3d 538, 547 commented that adopting a period of
limitations represents a legislative recognition that for all;
but for the most serious of offenses (such as murder and
aggravated forms of kidnapping), a never-ending threat of
prosecution is more detrimental to the functioning of a
civilized society than it is beneficial.
SB 950
Page 5
In Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607, the court ruled
that application of a new state law permitting resurrection of
otherwise time-barred criminal prosecutions violated the ex
post facto clause of the United States Constitution. The
court stated an otherwise lapsed statute of limitation may not
be revived for offenses that may have been committed years
before. The State may not retrospectively prosecute cases
where the statute of limitations has expired. The State may
only apply new rules related to tolling statutes of
limitations to conduct committed after the law is passed. In
Stogner , the court reiterated its prior statements regarding
the underlying purpose of the statute of limitation: "A
statute of limitations reflects a legislative judgment that,
after a certain time, no quantum of evidence is sufficient to
convict. And that judgment typically rests, in large part,
upon evidentiary concerns - for example, concern that the
passage of time has eroded memories or made witnesses or other
evidence unavailable." The court stated that the law reviving
tolled statutes of limitation deprives the defendant of the
"fair warning" that might have led him or her to preserve
exculpatory evidence, and warned that "a Constitution that
permits such an extension by allowing legislatures to pick and
choose when to act retroactively, risks both arbitrary and
potentially vindictive legislation."
The Stogner Court also noted that policy judgments on statutes
of limitations typically rest upon evidentiary concerns; for
example, concern that the passage of time has eroded memories
or made witnesses or other evidence unavailable. As the court
pointed out, without knowing of the possibility that he or she
may be prosecuted, a potential defendant may discard
exculpatory evidence which he or she certainly would have
maintained had he or she known a criminal prosecution was
looming in the distant future. Further, witnesses may be
unavailable or may be deceased by the time of the prosecution.
5)Statutes of Limitations under Current Law : The amount of time
a prosecuting agency may charge an alleged defendant varies
based on the crime. A misdemeanor offense must be charged
within one year of the crime. Felonies generally require
prosecution within three years, although there are exceptions.
(Penal Code Section 801.) Offenses that may be sentenced to
more than eight years in prison must be charged within six
years. (Penal Code Section 800.) Offenses punishable by
death or life imprisonment and embezzlement of public money
SB 950
Page 6
may be prosecuted at any time. There is no statute of
limitations for those offenses. (Penal Code Section 799).
The most common example is murder.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California District Attorneys Association
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744