BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
8
4
AB 184 (Gatto)
As Amended May 24, 2012
Hearing date: June 25, 2013
Penal Code
MK:mc
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 387 (La Malfa) - held in Sen. Public
Safety (ROCA)
AB 2484 (Davis) - not heard in Sen. Public Safety
(ROCA)
Support: California District Attorneys Association; California
State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FLEEING THE SCENE OF AN
ACCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS DEATH OR PERMANENT INJURY BE EITHER THE
EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR ONE YEAR AFTER THE PERSON IS
INITIALLY IDENTIFIED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A SUSPECT, WHICHEVER IS
LATER?
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow for a longer statute of
limitations when a person flees the scene of an accident where
death or permanent injury has occurred.
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 prosecution for any offense for which
the person would be required to register as a sex offender shall
be commenced within 10 years after commission of the offense
(unless otherwise provided under law, as specified; see §§
801.1, 801.3). (Penal Code § 801.5.)
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 involving
elder or dependent adult abuse, except involving theft or
embezzlement, shall be prosecuted within five years after the
commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 801.6.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense involving
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty or official misconduct, as
specified, shall be prosecuted within four years after discovery
of the offense or completion of the offense, whichever is later.
(Penal Code § 801.5.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for an offense punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison, unless otherwise specified,
shall be commenced within three years of the commission of the
offense. (Penal Code § 801.)
Existing law provides that prosecution for misdemeanors, except
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageC
as otherwise specified, shall commence within one year after
commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 802.)
This bill provides that whenever a person flees an accident that
causes death or permanent, serious injury, a criminal complaint
may be filed within the applicable time period or one year after
the person is initially identified by law enforcement as a
suspect in the commission of the offense, whichever is later.
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 which 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. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
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
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageD
. 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, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part 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 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered 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."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
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.
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageE
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Current law sets the statute of limitations for a
hit-and-run at three years after commission of the
offense. This has provided a perverse incentive for
some to flee the scene of an accident rather than take
responsibility for their actions. These culprits can
essentially run out the clock on the statute of
limitations by remaining unidentified after one of
these incidents.
Hit-and-run accidents have received little attention
over the years, but they have run rampant in cities
like Los Angeles. A recent investigation by L.A.
Weekly found that nearly 20,000 hit-and-run crashes -
everything from fender benders to multiple fatalities -
are recorded annually by the Los Angeles Police
Department. These incidents made up an astonishing 48
percent of all vehicle crashes in 2009, compared to an
average rate of just 11 percent nationwide. Data
collected by the state shows 4,000 hit-and-run
incidents a year in Los Angeles city limits lead to
injury or death.
Unfortunately, many of these incidents are never
prosecuted, in part because of the statute of
limitations running out.
2. The Statute of Limitations Generally; Law Revision Commission
Report
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
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageF
superior court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant. (Penal
Code § 804.) The failure of a prosecution to be commenced
within the applicable period of limitation 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.)
The Legislature enacted the current statutory scheme regarding
statutes of limitations for crimes in 1984 in response to a
report of the California Law Revision Commission:
The Commission identified various factors to be
considered in drafting a limitations statute. These
factors include: (a) The staleness factor. A person
accused of crime should be protected from having to face
charges based on possibly unreliable evidence and from
losing access to the evidentiary means to defend. (b)
The repose factor. This reflects society's lack of a
desire to prosecute for crimes committed in the distant
past. (c) The motivation factor. This aspect of the
statute imposes a priority among crimes for
investigation and prosecution. (d) The seriousness
factor. The statute of limitations is a grant of
amnesty to a defendant; the more serious the crime, the
less willing society is to grant that amnesty. (e) The
concealment factor. Detection of certain concealed
crimes may be quite difficult and may require long
investigations to identify and prosecute the
perpetrators.
The Commission concluded that a felony limitations
statute generally should be based on the seriousness of
the crime. Seriousness is easily determined based on
classification of a crime as felony or misdemeanor and
the punishment specified, and a scheme based on
seriousness generally will accommodate the other factors
as well. Also, the simplicity of a limitations period
based on seriousness provides predictability and
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageG
promotes uniformity of treatment.<1>
3. Statute of Limitations for Fleeing an Accident Causing
Injury or Death
Existing law prohibits fleeing the scene of an accident. If a
person flees an accident that caused death or permanent serious
injury, the person is guilty of a wobbler punished by two, three
or four years in state prison, or in county jail for 90 days to
one year. (Vehicle Code § 20001 (b)(2).) The statute of
limitations would be 3 years after the commission of the
offense, unless it was charged initially as a misdemeanor, in
which case it would be one year. The existing 3-year
limitations period seems consistent with the sentencing
provisions applicable to this crime and with the recommendations
of the Law Revision Commission. This bill provides that in
addition to the existing statute of limitations, when a person
flees the scene of an accident where there was death or
permanent injury, the statute of limitations is either the
existing statute of limitations or one year after the person is
initially identified by law enforcement as a suspect in the
commission of the offense, whichever is later.
4. Prison Impact Considerations
The Assembly Appropriations Committee's analysis of this bill
included the following information concerning its potential to
impact the prison system:
Unknown potential increase in state prison commitments
for fleeing the scene of an accident that causes death
or serious injury, to the extent this bill results in
additional convictions and commitments. In 2011 and
2012, a total of 67 persons were committed to state
prison for this offense. If this bill increases that
number by five percent, annual GF costs would increase
by about $200,000 in two years, assuming a midterm
sentence of two years.
-----------------------
<1> 1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses, Section 214 (3rd Ed.
2004), citing 17 Cal. Law Rev. Com. Reports, pp.308-314.
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageH
5. Opposition
The ACLU opposes this bill stating:
Criminal statutes of limitation are laws that limit the
time during which a prosecution may be commenced.
These statutes have been in operation for over three
hundred fifty years and are deeply rooted in our
American judicial system. Several public policy
arguments underlie the reasoning behind statutes of
limitation. 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
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 statutes of limitation may
reduce the possibility of blackmail based on threats to
disclose information to prosecutors or law enforcement
officials.
(More)
The United States Supreme Court also expressed concerns
for fairness in commencing stale prosecutions:
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. (Stogner v. California (2003)
539 U.S. 607, 615 [123 S.Ct. 2446].)
The Court held that a 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." (Stogner v.
California (2003) 539 U.S., at 616; United States v.
Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 122 [86 S.Ct. 773]) (holding
that statutes of limitation are the primary guarantee
against bringing overly stale charges).)
This bill specifies that any prosecution for leaving
the scene of an accident resulting in death or serious
injury may commence one year after the alleged suspect
is identified. In practical terms, prosecutors could
allege a person left the scene of an accident ten years
prior, but where the charged person was only identified
six months before. This makes it virtually impossible
for a person to mount a competent defense given that he
or she may not even remember the circumstances. This
presents a fundamental unfairness to the defendant and
may result in erroneous convictions.
Moreover, statutory exceptions to the general three
year felony rule only exist where DNA evidence may
(More)
AB 184 (Gatto)
PageJ
reveal a suspect long after the crime is committed.
(Cal. Penal Code § 803(g).) However, in the case of
leaving the scene of an accident, DNA is not likely to
play a significant factor in identifying a suspect.
These types of cases are usually solved by questioning
witnesses at the scene, reviewing any available traffic
cameras, and using accident reconstruction to
re-creating the event. Hence, no exception seems
warranted in this case, particularly given the legal
precedent favoring short statutes of limitation.
***************