BILL ANALYSIS AB 1178 Date of Hearing: April 13, 1993 Counsel: Judith M. Garvey ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bob Epple, Chair AB 1178 (Epple) - As Introduced: March 2, 1993 ISSUE: SHOULD THE PENALTIES FOR STALKING BE INCREASED AND SHOULD THE ELEMENTS OF THE STALKING OFFENSE BE REVISED? DIGEST Under current law: 1) It is a misdemeanor to stalk, punishable by up to one year in the county jail and/or a fine up to $1,000. Stalking consists of willfully, maliciously and repeatedly following or harassing another person and making a "credible threat" with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury (GBI) or to place that person in reasonable fear of the death or GBI of his or her immediate family. (Penal Code section 646.9(a).) 2) It is an alternate felony/misdemeanor, for any person who stalks when there is a court order, as defined, in effect, prohibiting the behavior described above against the same party, punishable by 16 months, two or three years in state prison, or up to one year in county jail. (Penal Code section 646.9(b).) 3) It is an alternate felony/misdemeanor, upon a second or subsequent conviction occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for stalking against the same victim, and involving an act of violence or a credible threat of violence, punishable by 16 months, two or three years in state prison, or by up to one year in the county jail. (Penal Code section 646.9(c).) 4) It is a felony for every person who, having been convicted of felony š stalking, commits a second or subsequent violation for stalking, against the same victim and involving an act of violence or a credible threat of violence, punishable by 16 months, two or three years in state prison. (Penal Code section 646.9(d).) This bill: 1) Makes the first offense for stalking an alternate felony/misdemeanor, š punishable by 16 months, two or three years in state prison and a fine up to $10,000 or up to one year in the county jail and/or a fine up to $1,000. - continued - AB 1178 Page 1 AB 1178 2) Deletes the requirement that in order to constitute stalking that in š addition to repeatedly following and harassing another person, the person make a credible threat with intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury and instead, require, that the person act with intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, as defined. 3) Makes a violation when there is a temporary restraining order (TRO), a š felony, punishable by two, three or four years in state prison and a fine up to $10,000 instead of an alternate felony/misdemeanor. 4) Makes a second or subsequent conviction for stalking or stalking in š violation of a court order, against the same victim, a felony, punishable by three, four or five years in state prison instead of an alternate felony/misdemeanor. 5) Redefines "harasses" by including "torments":. 6) Provides that no person convicted of stalking in violation of a court š order, a second or felony conviction for stalking may be released on probation unless a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist certifies that the person is not a menace, as defined. 7) Defines "immediate family". COMMENTS 1) Purpose. According to the author, Criminals that stalk and intimidate their victims should be locked up immediately. Never again should a victim be told that there is nothing that can be done until a violent act has taken place. Law enforcement tells me that the overly strict requirements of proof contained in current California law has hindered our ability to prosecute many serious stalking cases. This bill instead allows prosecution where the defendant has willfully, maliciously and repeatedly followed or harassed another person with the intent to cause that person to fear for life or safety. Similar laws have lead to many successful prosecutions in other states. Stalkers will no longer be able to hide behind California's lenient anti-stalking law. When this bill is enacted, it will be clear to victims and perpetrators alike that the crime of stalking is treated seriously in California. 2) Legislative History. SB 2184 (Ch. 1527/90) and SB 1342 (Ch. 627/92) š created the California stalking law as it exists. Five percent of all women in the United States will be stalked at some point in their lives. There are an estimated 200,000 stalkers nationwide. The phenomenon of stalking gained wide notice in 1982, when actress Theresa Saldana survived a brutal knife attack from a crazed fan, in 1988, when Richard Farley gunned down 11 people in Sunnyvale because - continued - AB 1178 Page 2 AB 1178 one of them had rebuffed his advances and when TV actress Rebecca Schaeffer was shot to death on her doorstep by a stalker who tracked her through state automobile records in 1989. Our California law followed five murders which had taken place the year before in Orange County. Twenty-seven other states enacted š similar "stalking" laws and measures are pending elsewhere. 3) Paper Shields. This bill provides that a temporary restraining š order (TRO) or prior conviction is no longer required before a stalking case can be charged as a felony, given appropriate facts and circumstances. In other words, AB 1178, provides stalking is an alternate felony/misdemeanor, instead of a misdemeanor. According to Oakland Police Officer Dana Flynn, "They're paper shields. There's no way we can watch everyone who's got a TRO so the woman is taking an enormous risk in getting one. But it's a risk she has to take if she wants to end the problem." Flynn acknowledges that no court order will dissuade a determined hunter. It merely makes a stalker angrier. 4) Recent Incident. Nobody keeps count of how many stalkers are making š people's lives miserable. The Judicial Council of California has reported that through December 31, 1991, 10 persons have been convicted and sentenced under the 1990 stalking law. However, the plight of an ordinary person is summarized to illustrate why stronger laws are needed: The victim, Yon Soon Choe, was hounded and beaten for six years by her ex-husband. Yon Choe did nearly everything the experts would have told her to do after Jae Choe began beating her and acting obsessively possessive in 1986. First she went through counseling with him and in 1990, after counseling failed, she divorced him. He kept invading her home and beating her, so she went to a women's shelter and got two TRO's telling him to stay away from her and their two teen-age children. She had him jailed for three months after one violent episode last year, but as recently as December 27, 1992, she told a counselor that he was still after her, unable to accept their separation. Her fears came true the next day when Jae Choe, packing a semiautomatic rifle broke through the back door of her Richmond duplex and began screaming at her and smashing furniture. In a matter of minutes, he shot and killed two policemen who rushed to help, gunned down Yon Soon Choe and the couple's 14-year old son, and then pumped one final, fatal round into his own head. Choe is now recovering with her son. 5) State Prison Term. AB 1178, increases state prison terms from 16 months, two or three years to two, three, or four years, if a person stalks in violation of a restraining order and three, four or five years, if the person has a prior conviction or was previously convicted of a felony. The following example illustrates why a short state prison sentence is not sufficient: Senator Bob Krueger and his wife have been hounded by a stalker for - continued - AB 1178 Page 3 AB 1178 years. The years of psychological abuse have left them both scarred and always looking over their shoulders. In 1984, Kruger lost a hotly contested Senate race. Everyone was heartbroken, but no one so much as the Krueger's private pilot, Tom Humphrey. After the loss Humphrey joined the other staff members at the Kruegers' house to complete chores to close the book on the race. Unlike the others, Humphrey continued to show up and seemed obsessed with the campaign loss. Soon the daily visits became an intrusion into the Kruegers' family life. Senator Krueger began to courteously nudge him away, asking him to respect their privacy. Humphrey snapped and began calling the Kruegers' home at 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. Sometimes he called 120 times a day. He ranted. He babbled. He threatened. He talked of catching Krueger in a parking lot and beating him senseless. He left outraged letters in their mailbox. He went to the Kruegers' house at odd times of the day. He'd ring the bell and stand on the porch for as long as 20 minutes just staring at the door. The Kruegers went to the county and private attorney. Humphrey violated a peace bond, was jailed and continued the harassment as soon as he was released. The Kruegers, the parents of two young children, felt vulnerable. The threats escalated. One night the doorbell rang and Mrs. Krueger saw Humphrey in front of her door. Home alone, she expected her husband to drive in at any minute. After she called 911, the police came but Humphrey had disappeared. Humphrey moved out of state but continued the telephone harassment calling Senator Krueger's office every day. Finally in 1987, he stated left a message on the Senator's answering machine that he was going to kill him and that he hired a killer to put a .22 caliber to his head while he lay sleeping next to his wife. Humphrey served about 18 months for this and was granted a supervised release. He began the old stalking patterns almost immediately. He was jailed again and when released, resumed harassment. He left a note on their door "See how close I can get to you. I could kill you right now if I wanted to. He's behind bars again, but Senator Krueger expects he will be on supervised release again soon. 6) Immediate Family. This bill defines "immediate family" for purposes š of the stalking statute to mean any spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household. This language was in SB 1342 (Ch. 627/92) when the bill was pending before this committee, but was inadvertently omitted in the rewrite of SB 1342. 7) Similar Legislation. AB 284 (Speier) and AB 303 (Conroy) also š revise the California stalking law and are also scheduled for - continued - AB 1178 Page 4 AB 1178 hearing on April 13, 1993. 8) Opposition. According to the California Attorneys for Criminal š Justice, "California's stalking law was the result of careful negotiation and drafting in an attempt to define the offense in a manner which would allow only for prosecution of a targeted group of people. AB 1178 proposes unraveling that agreement and redefining the offense in a manner which is overbroad." SOURCE: The Los Angeles District Attorney SUPPORT: The American Association of University Women OPPOSITION: The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice The California Association of Licensed Investigators AB 1178 Page 5