BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
9
5
1
SB 951 (Torres)
As Amended: March 28, 2014
Hearing date: April 22, 2014
Penal Code
MK:sl
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: CONSPIRACY
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Police Chiefs Association; California
District Attorneys Association
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Taxpayers
for Improving Public Safety
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY BE COMMENCED WITHIN THE TIME
REQUIRED FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION FOR THE UNDERLYING
CRIME?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that prosecution for
conspiracy shall be commenced within the time required for the
commencement of prosecution for the underlying crime.
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 2
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable
by death or life without the possibility of parole, or for
embezzling public money, may be commenced at any time.
(Penal Code � 799.)
Existing law provides that offering of any valuable thing to any
member of the governing board of any school district, with the
intent to influence his action in regard to the granting of any
teacher's certificate, the appointment of any teacher,
superintendent, or other officer or employee, the adoption of
any textbook, or the making of any contract to which the board
of which he is a member is a party, or the acceptance by any
member of the governing board of any valuable thing, with
corrupt intent, is a misdemeanor. (Education Code � 35230.)
Existing law provides that the offering of any valuable thing to
any member of the governing board of any community college
district, with the intent to influence his or her action in
regard to the granting of any instructor's certificate, the
appointment of any instructor, superintendent, or other officer
or employee, the adoption of any textbook, or the making of any
contract to which the board of which he or she is a member is a
party, or the acceptance by any member of the governing board of
any valuable thing, with corrupt intent, is a misdemeanor.
(Education Code
� 72530.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable
by eight years in prison shall be commenced within six years
after the commission of the offense. (Penal Code � 800.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison shall be commenced within
three years after the commission of the offense. (Penal Code �
801.)
Existing law provides that notwithstanding Penal Code section
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 3
801, prosecution for any offense described in Penal Code section
803(c) shall be commenced within four years or after the
discovery of the offense, or within four years after the
completion of the offense whichever is later. (Penal Code �
801.5.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense not
punishable by death or imprisonment in state prison, or a Penal
Code section 1170(h) felony shall be commenced within one year
after the commission of the offense. (Penal Code � 802.)
Existing law provides that for specified offenses the statute of
limitations does not commence to run until the discovery of the
offense. These offenses include: grand theft; forgery; perjury;
filing false reports; money laundering; conflict of interest;
fraud against an elder; insurance fraud; medical fraud; and
acceptance of a bribe by a public official or a public employee.
(Penal Code � 803.)
Existing law provides that it is a conspiracy if two or more
persons conspire to:
Commit any crime;
Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime,
or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any
crime;
Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action or
proceeding;
Cheat and defraud any person of any property by any
means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money
or property by false pretenses or by false promises with
fraudulent intent not to perform those promises;
Commit any act injurious to the public health, to public
morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice or the due
administration of the laws; or,
Commit any crime against the person of the President or
Vice President of the United States, the Governor of any
state or territory, any United States justice or judge, or
the secretary of any of the executive departments of the
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 4
United States. (Penal Code � 182)
Existing law provides that the punishment for a conspiracy
depends on the type of conspiracy but generally a person who
conspires to commit a felony shall be subject to the same
punishment as the prescribed for the felony. (Penal Code � 182)
This bill provides that prosecution for conspiracy to commit a
crime shall be commenced within the time required for the
commencement of the prosecution for the underlying crime.
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.
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
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 5
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
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,
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 6
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 February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 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:
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:
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 7
SB 951 clarifies the statute of limitations for
conspiracy to commit felony crimes.
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 951 will strengthen the laws governing bribery of
public officials and help bolster public trust in
government.
On May 9, 2011 a special grand jury in San Bernardino
County issued a 29-count indictment against members and
staff of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
(Board) and Colonies Partners, L.P. (Colonies). The
indictment (The People of the State of California v.
Paul Biane, et al (2011) FSB 1102102) alleges that
Colonies conspired to bribe public officials in return
for their votes to approve a settlement between
Colonies and the County of San Bernardino (County) for
$102 million.
On November 28, 2006, the Board voted 3 to 2 to approve
a $102 million settlement with Colonies. The
prosecution alleges the amount was based on an
unsubstantiated demand and against the advice of County
staff, counsel and private attorneys. The complaint
alleges those votes were obtained as part of a broad
conspiracy which involved extortion and bribery,
culminating in acts of public corruption that cost
County taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The
investigation uncovered four bribes totaling $400,000
paid by Colonies to secure the alleged illegal
settlement.
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 8
(More)
Between March and July 2007, two members of the Board
who voted in favor of the Colonies settlement each
received contributions of $100,000 to political action
committees controlled by them. Additionally, a staff
member to a member of the Board who voted in favor of
the Colonies settlement also received a $100,000
contribution to a political action committee under his
control.
The Colonies case is currently being prosecuted jointly
by California Attorney General Kamala Harris and San
Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos.
The defense has filed several legal challenges at the
trail court and appellate level since the indictment
was filed in 2011. Those challenges over the course of
four years have stymied the prosecution's efforts to
bring the case to a jury trial
Several legal challenges reached the California State
Supreme Court and were decided in favor of the
prosecution in December 2013. SB 951 seeks to clarify
one of the legal roadblocks raised by the defense. The
bill clarifies that a prosecution for conspiracy to
commit a crime shall commence within the time required
for commencement of prosecution for the underlying
felony crime.
2. Statute of Limitations for Conspiracy Linked to the Crime
Existing law sets the statute of limitations for felonies at
three years. However, specified felonies that are specifically
tolled until discovered set the statute of limitations at four
years. The sentence of conspiracy is generally linked to the
sentence for the underlying crime although conspiracy is a
separate crime. Because conspiracy is a separate crime, the
statute of limitations does not change just because the
underlying crime is one of those which has its statute of
limitation tolled until discovery and extended to four years.
(More)
SB 951 (Torres)
Page 10
(See People v. Milstein (2012) 211 Cal App 4th 1158)
This bill provides that the statute of limitations for
conspiracy shall be the same as that of the underlying crime.
Thus, if the statute of limitations is tolled and lengthened for
the underlying crime it will also be for a conspiracy charge
linked to the underlying crime.
3. People v. Milstein
In uncodified intent language this bill states that it is
intended to abrogate People v. Milstein. That case was based on
existing law regarding the statute of limitations. The intent
language seems unnecessary since this bill will specifically
address the statute of limitations in conspiracy cases and thus
change the law on which that case was based.
***************