BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 382
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2015
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB
382 (Lara) - As Amended June 15, 2015
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY: Adds guidance to the existing criteria used by judges
in determining the fitness of a minor to have his or her case
adjudicated in juvenile court. Specifically, this bill:
SB 382
Page 2
1)Adds the following discretionary factors within each of the
existing five criteria used to determine whether a minor is a
fit and proper subject to be dealt with in the juvenile court
system:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor. Specifies that the juvenile court may give weight to
any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the
minor's age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical,
mental, and emotional health at the time of the alleged
offense, the minor's impetuosity or failure to appreciate
risks and consequences of criminal behavior, the effect of
familial, adult, or peer pressure on the minor's actions,
and the effect of the minor's family and community
environment and childhood trauma on the minor's criminal
sophistication;
b) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction. Provides
that the juvenile court may give weight to any relevant
factor, including, but not limited to, the minor's
potential to grow and mature;
c) The minor's previous delinquent history. Provides the
juvenile court may give weight to any relevant factor,
including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the
minor's previous delinquent history and the effect of the
minor's family and community environment and childhood
trauma on the minor's previous delinquent behavior;
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor. Specifies that the juvenile court
SB 382
Page 3
may give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not
limited to, the adequacy of the services previously
provided to address the minor's needs; and,
e) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in
the petition to have been committed by the minor.
Specifies that the juvenile court may give weight to any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the actual
behavior of the person, the mental state of the person, the
person's degree of involvement in the crime, the level of
harm actually caused by the person, and the person's mental
and emotional development.
2)Revises the five criteria that a juvenile must demonstrate to
the court when requesting a juvenile court disposition in his
or her case, which was initiated in adult criminal court
without a prior finding that the person was not fit for
juvenile court, to add the same discretionary factors above.
EXISTING LAW:
1)States, except as provided, any person who is under the age of
18 when he or she violates any law of this state or of the
United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this
state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a
curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a).)
SB 382
Page 4
2)Provides in any case where the juvenile court determines
fitness of the minor, the court must examine whether the minor
would or would not be amenable to the care, treatment, and
training program available through the juvenile court, based
upon an evaluation of the following criteria:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor;
b) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction;
c) The minor's previous delinquent history;
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor; and,
e) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in
the petition to have been committed by the minor. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 707, subds. (a) and (c).)
3)Authorizes a minor who has had his case prosecuted in adult
criminal court, without a prior fitness hearing, to make a
motion to receive a disposition under the juvenile court law,
based upon each of the following five criteria:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
person;
b) Whether the person can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction;
c) The person's previous delinquent history;
SB 382
Page 5
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the person; and,
e) The circumstances and gravity of the offense for which
the person has been convicted. (Pen. Code, § 1170.17.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 382 would
update the existing 5 criteria used by judges when determining
the fitness of an individual to enter the adult criminal
justice system to ensure judges consider, such as the actual
behavior of the individual and their ability to grow, mature,
and be rehabilitated. It is critical that judges have the
most relevant information and full picture of an individual,
before they make the critical decision of which jurisdiction a
juvenile offender should be charged in."
2)Background: According to background materials provided by the
author's office, "Traditionally, juveniles in California could
only be transferred to the adult criminal courts after a
judicial 'fitness' hearing. At the hearing, the juvenile court
judge would receive a comprehensive social study report, and
evaluate the young person's 'fitness' to remain in juvenile
court in light of five criteria relating to criminal history,
past attempts at rehabilitation, capacity to be rehabilitated,
criminal sophistication, and characteristics of the alleged
SB 382
Page 6
offense. Since the enactment of Proposition 21 in 2000,
juveniles as young as 14 years of age may also be handled in
the adult courts by prosecutorial 'direct file,' which
bypasses the traditional judicial hearing."
3)Jurisdiction Over Juvenile Offenders: California law
generally provides that persons under the age of 18 who are
alleged to have committed a crime are within the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court. However, there are three discrete
mechanisms for remanding minors to adult criminal court:
By statutory waiver, meaning that a statute mandates that
juveniles who fall into certain categories automatically will
be transferred to adult court. Current statutes provide that
juvenile court has no jurisdiction over minors 14 years of age
and older who are alleged to have committed first degree
murder where the minor personally murdered the victim, or who
are alleged to have committed specified "1-strike" forcible
sex crime offenses under certain circumstances; these offenses
are required to be prosecuted in adult court. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 602, subd. (b).)
By prosecutorial waiver, meaning for certain cases prosecutors
have the discretion to file charges against certain minors in
juvenile or adult criminal court. For minors 14 years of age
or older, a prosecutor may directly file the case in adult
criminal court if the minor has previously committed an
offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b)
and the current offense is also one of those listed offenses,
as well as in other enumerated circumstances such as when a
minor is alleged to have committed an offense that if
committed by an adult would be punishable by death or
imprisonment in state prison for life. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
707, subd.(d)(2).) For minors 16 years of age or older, a
prosecutor may directly file the case in adult criminal court
if the minor's current offense is one of the offenses listed
in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b). (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (d)(1).)
SB 382
Page 7
By judicial waiver, meaning that juvenile court judges use
their discretion to determine whether to waive jurisdiction
over a case. In these instances, the court must make a
determination as to whether the minor is fit for juvenile
court. The juvenile court determines the fitness of a minor
for juvenile court by weighing whether the minor would be
amenable to the care, treatment, and training program
available through the facilities of the juvenile court, based
upon an evaluation of the following criteria:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor;
b) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction;
c) The minor's previous delinquent history;
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor; and,
e) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in
the petition to have been committed by the minor. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 707, subds. (a) and (c).)
This bill deals with judicial waivers, where a court considers
the five enumerated factors to determine the fitness of a
minor for juvenile court. This bill merely provides additional
guidance to the courts on how to evaluate the criteria, and
replaces the term "consider" with "give weight to."
4)Proposed Amendments to be Adopted in Committee: This bill will
be heard as proposed to be amended. The amendments are
non-substantive in nature. The amendments conform the language
provided in Penal Code section 1170.17 to the language in
Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 in order to make the
discretionary factors uniform in both sections.
5)Arguments in Support:
a) According to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights,
"Current law allows youth as young as 14 to be charged as
adults. Some youth may be direct filed by prosecutors,
SB 382
Page 8
bypassing the courts, while other youth must go through a
fitness hearing where a judge makes the determination to
remove the youth from juvenile proceedings into adult
court, or keep the youth in juvenile court. Current law
requires judges to apply 5 criteria to make this
determination. In light of significant changes in the law
and findings on adolescent brain development, this bill
would codify additional factors that judges should take
into consideration, including maturity, intellectual
capacity, childhood trauma, and the level of harm directly
caused by the youth."
b) The Judicial Council writes, "The Judicial Council
supports SB 382 because it enhances judicial discretion,
increases uniformity in courts when considering the fitness
of a juvenile to enter either the juvenile court system or
the adult criminal justice system, and is consistent with
existing practices. SB 382 enhances judicial discretion by
providing further illustration of the five existing
criteria judges must consider when determining whether an
individual should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult for
certain serious crimes. Judges are free to use their
discretion to determine which factors are relevant to each
of the five listed criteria and to consider additional
factors similar to those listed by SB 382.
"Further, the council believes that by giving courts
additional guidance on the Legislature's intent behind each
of the five criteria listed in existing law, SB 382 will
result in greater consistency in the application of those
factors by courts. Finally, many criminal justice partners
already consider those factors when determining whether an
individual is fit for either the juvenile court system or
the adult court system."
6)Prior Legislation: SB 1151 (Kuehl), of the 2003-2004
Legislative Session, would have clarified the definition of
the "circumstances and gravity of the offense" for purposes of
evaluating the fitness of a minor for juvenile court
SB 382
Page 9
jurisdiction. SB 1151 was vetoed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Anti-Recidivism Coalition (Sponsor)
Human Rights Watch (Sponsor)
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Probation and Parole Association
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
Californians for Safety and Justice
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Children Now
SB 382
Page 10
Children's Defense Fund - California
East Bay Children's Law Office
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Judicial Council
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
National Employment Law Project
Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
PolicyLink
Post-Conviction Justice Project, USC Gould School of Law
Root & Rebound
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Youth Law Center
SB 382
Page 11
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744