BILL ANALYSIS
Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
SB 1342 (Burton)
Hearing Date:5/25/00 Amended:4/25/00
Consultant: Lisa Matocq Policy Vote:Pub Saf 5-0
____________________________________________________________
___
BILL SUMMARY: SB 1342 establishes a procedure for a
defendant who was convicted in a criminal case to request
postconviction testing of DNA evidence if the technology
was not available at the time of the trial, as specified.
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2000-01 2001-02
2002-03 Fund
DNA testing Unknown costs, probably in excess of
General
$150 annually and potentially
significant
Courts Minor, absorbable, costs
General
Appointed counsel Unknown costs, potentially
reimbursable Local
Storage of evidence Unknown increased mandated,
potentially Local
reimbursable costs
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. Under current law, there
is no procedure in place to specifically allow
postconviction DNA testing of evidence. This bill:
allows a defendant to file a motion for postconviction
DNA testing of evidence if the technology was not
available at the time of trial, as specified,
requires the court to allow the testing if certain
conditions are met, such as the evidence is available and
in a condition suitable for testing,
allows a court to appoint counsel for an indigent
defendant,
provides that the costs of testing be borne by the state
or the defendant, and
except as otherwise specified, requires the appropriate
governmental entity to retain biological evidence for as
long as the defendant remains incarcerated.
Background: According to the U.S. Department of Justice's
September 1999 report, Postconviction DNA Testing:
Recommendations for Handling Requests "more than 60
convictions in the U.S. have been vacated on the basis of
DNA testing". Four of those cases were apparently in
California where the average term already served was about
10 years.
The costs of this bill are indeterminable and vary
depending on a number of factors including: the number of
inmates who request testing, the number of tests performed,
and the number of defendants who are appointed counsel.
lllinois and New York have enacted postconviction DNA
testing statutes. The bill's supporters state that since
enactment of the Illinois statute in 1997, approximately 25
motions have been filed (information for New York was
unavailable), or .03% of its 41,000 inmate population per
year. For illustrative purposes, if .03% of California's
prison population (160,000) filed motions, there would be
48 motions filed annually. To the extent that the motion
is granted, increased costs for DNA testing alone could be
as much as $240,000 (testing costs are reported to be
$3,000-5,000).
To the extent that the DNA testing exonerates some
individuals, there are unknown incarceration cost savings.
The incarceration costs of the four individuals cited in
the U.S. DOJ study who were ultimately exonerated would
have been about $920,000; incarceration costs are about
$23,000 per inmate year. Cost savings may be offset to
some extent by payments made by the state to defendants who
were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Current law caps
such payments at $10,000, however, AB 110 (Baugh, Ch. 619,
St. of 1999) appropriated $620,000 (the equivalent of $100
per day) to Kevin Lee Green who was exonerated after
spending 17 years in prison for second-degree murder,
attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon. AB 110
also provided that the compensation was not subject to
income tax.
AB 1799 (Baugh), on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense
File, removes the $10,000 cap mentioned above and instead
provides that compensation shall not exceed $100 per day of
incarceration, contingent upon legislative appropriation,
and shall not be subject to income tax.