BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          AB 589
                                                          Page  1

Date of Hearing:   April 28, 1999

              ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 
                    Carole Migden, Chairwoman

      AB 589 (Margett) - As Introduced: February 19, 1999 

Policy Committee:                              Public  
SafetyVote:  5-3

Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local  
Program:NoReimbursable:            

  SUMMARY  :

This bill expands the "special circumstances" list allowing  
imposition of the death penalty to include the murder of peace  
officers employed by a state hospital under the jurisdiction of  
the Departments of Mental Health or Developmental Services.

  FISCAL EFFECT
  
1)Unknown potentially significant annual state trial court costs  
  for more costly trials. Death Penalty Focus of California,  
  based on a study of L.A. cases, found that the total cost of a  
  death penalty trial was $1.9 million, compared with $600,000  
  for a non-capital murder trial. Of the $1.3 million  
  differential, about $425,000 represents court costs covered by  
  state trial court funding. If only one person was affected by  
  this bill, annual state costs would be about $425,000.

2)Unknown potentially significant out-year state and local costs  
  for executions, which can cost millions per execution more  
  than the cost of life imprisonment. Several studies indicate  
  that the post-trial cost of execution - appeals, motions,  
  investigators and other specialized processes - exceed $1  
  million.  A 1988 review by the Sacramento Bee estimated that  
  the cost per execution in California was $15 million, compared  
  to the 40-year cost of life-without-possibility-of-parole  
  (LWOP), $900,000.

3)State ballot costs of about $200,000, based on the Secretary  
  of State's estimate of $50,000 per ballot page.
 
  COMMENTS  :








                                                          AB 589
                                                          Page  2


1)  Rationale  . According to the author, peace officers within the  
  State Departments of Mental 
  Health and Developmental Services are the only peace officers  
  not included within the death penalty special circumstances. 

2)  Current law  provides that murder is the unlawful killing of a  
  human or fetus with malice aforethought. First-degree murder  
  is committed by means of destructive devices, explosives,  
  knowing use of armor-piercing bullets, lying in wait, torture,  
  or any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or  
  murders committed during the commission of a list of  
  enumerated felonies (felony-murder).  All other kinds of  
  murder are second-degree.

The penalty for first-degree murder without special  
  circumstances is 25-years-to-life. The penalty for  
  first-degree murder is death or LWOP when one or more of 32  
  enumerated special circumstances are found true. 

4)  Victim status as basis for death penalty  .  There are several  
  categories of intentional killings that are special  
  circumstances because of the victims' civic duties. These  
  include:

   a)   Peace officers or firefighters in the course of duty, or  
     former peace officers killed in retaliation for duties as a  
     peace officer. Statute lists 16 categories of peace that  
     authorize the death penalty.

   b)   A witness killed to prevent testimony.

   c)   A current or former juror, elected or appointed  
     official, judge, or prosecutor killed in retaliation for  
     official duties.

5)  When are special circumstances no longer special  ? According to  
  Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys, if special  
  circumstances are expanded, they become less special and more  
  likely to spark a legal challenge. The California District  
  Attorneys Association and the Attorney General's Office have  
  declined to take a position on this bill.  Prosecutors  
  acknowledge being warned by Supreme Court Justice O'Connor not  
  to expand the death penalty for this reason. 









                                                          AB 589
                                                          Page  3

  The United States Supreme Court has said that "[a] capital  
  sentencing scheme must . . . provide a  'meaningful basis for  
  distinguishing the few cases in which the penalty is imposed  
  from the many cases in which it is not.' "   Gregg v. Georgia  ,  
  (1976) 428 U.S. 153, quoting  Furman v. Georgia  , (1972) 408  
  U.S. 238, 313.

  According to the Public Safety Committee analysis and  
  proponents of this bill, in this particular case, the list of  
  peace officers is currently so extensive, a court would likely  
  find inclusion of the peace officers added by this bill  
  constitutionally sound.

6)  Opposition  .  According to the California Attorneys for  
  Criminal Justice, "By adding yet another special circumstance  
  to the existing list of at least 21 such circumstances, courts  
  may find California's death penalty statute to be so broad as  
  to violate the strictures established by the Supreme Court in  
  Furman?.  Additionally, expansion of the death penalty is a  
  violation of international law. The United States is a  
  signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political  
  Rights.  As such it is obligated not to expand its existing  
  death penalty provisions.  This applies to the individual  
  States as well as the federal government."


  Analysis Prepared by  :    Geoff Long / APPR. / (916)319-2081