BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2063
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sheila James Kuehl, Chair
AB 2063 (Zettel) - As Amended: April 6, 2000
SUBJECT : ELDER ABUSE: NEW ADMISSIBILITY STANDARDS IN CRIMINAL
CASES
KEY ISSUE : CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA'S APPROACH TO DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, Should evidence of prior abuse of an elder or
dependent adult be POTENTIALLY admiSSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL CASE?
SUMMARY : Consistent with California's approach to domestic
violence, seeks to protect elders and dependent adults against
abuse by permitting, in appropriate circumstances, the admission
of "prior bad acts" evidence of abuse of an elder or a dependent
adult. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits evidence of prior acts of abuse of an elder or a
dependent adult to be admitted to prove the defendant's
conduct when the defendant is accused of abuse of an elder or
a dependent adult, subject to various evidentiary
restrictions.
2)Defines abuse of an elder or a dependent adult for these
purposes by referencing the standard definition in the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, except where specifically provided, that all
relevant evidence is admissible. (Evidence Code Section 351.
All references are to this code unless otherwise noted.)
2)Provides that a court may exclude otherwise admissible
evidence if the probative value of the evidence is outweighed
by the probability that its admission will create substantial
danger of undue prejudice to the defendant, of confusing the
issues, or of misleading the jury. (Section 352.)
3)Provides that evidence of a person's character, such as
opinion or specific instances of conduct, is generally not
admissible to prove a defendant's conduct on a particular
AB 2063
Page 2
occasion. (Section 1101(a).)
4)Provides that character evidence may be admissible, however,
if it is found to be relevant to prove motive, opportunity,
intent, or other facts. (Section 1101(b).)
5)Provides, in criminal actions, an exception to this general
rule of inadmissibility where the character of the defendant
or victim may be admissible when a) it is offered by the
defendant to prove his/her conduct in conformity with such
character or trait of character; or, b) it is offered by the
prosecution to rebut evidence adduced by the defendant.
(Sections 1102 and 1103.)
6)Provides an express exception to the general rule of
inadmissibility in domestic violence cases, stating that in
such cases, evidence of the defendant's prior acts of domestic
violence may be admitted to prove the defendant's conduct,
except when the acts occurred more than 10 years ago or the
court exercises its discretion under section 352 to exclude
the evidence of prior acts. (Section 1109.)
7)Provides that in a criminal action in which the defendant is
accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant's
commission of another sexual offense or offenses is admissible
to prove the disposition of the defendant if the probative
value of the evidence is not outweighed by a substantial
danger of undue prejudice. (Section 1108(a).)
8)Provides that prosecutors generally are required to disclose
to defendants and their counsel all relevant evidence at least
30 days prior to trial absent good cause. (Penal Code
sections 1054.3 and 1054.7.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : As introduced, this bill sought to protect elders
and dependent adults by redefining "domestic violence" in
various statutes. Legitimate concerns about this approach were
raised by experts in domestic violence prevention because of the
potential of confusing the nature of domestic violence. As
recently amended, the legislation limits its scope to permitting
the potential admission of evidence of prior acts of abuse of an
elder or a dependent adult in criminal prosecutions for elder
AB 2063
Page 3
and dependent abuse. It is thus the author's intent by this
bill to expand the bases for inclusion of a defendant's
character evidence, most specifically to include evidence of a
disposition of violence towards an elderly or dependent
individual.
This approach is consistent with California's evidentiary scheme
for combating domestic violence. The bill therefore may
substantially assist in the state's efforts to curb the tragic
problem of violence against elders and dependent adults.
The General Rule Regarding Character Evidence : Since the
earliest days of statehood, California has generally excluded
evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her
character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of
reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his/her
conduct) when offered to prove conduct on a specified occasion.
This provision is codified in Evidence Code section 1101(a).
The general reasons for excluding this type of evidence are
twofold. First, while the evidence is relevant under the
general meaning of "relevancy", it tends to distract the trier
of fact from focusing on the facts at issue. Second,
disposition evidence can be very inflammatory and prejudicial.
In the classic phrase, this evidence is generally inadmissible
precisely because it attempts to show that if "he/she did it
before, he/she did it again." (See also generally 1 Witkin,
California Evidence, 3d ed., section 334.)
Exceptions to the General Admissibility Bar : As opposed to
character evidence, the common law and Evidence Code section
1101 have allowed the admissibility of evidence that a person
committed a crime, civil wrong or other act when relevant to
prove some fact other than his or her disposition to committing
such an act, i.e., motive, intent, opportunity, preparation,
plan, or knowledge. In addition, Evidence Code section 1109
provides an express exception to the general rule of
inadmissibility in domestic violence cases.
To strengthen the prosecution of elder and dependent abuse
cases, this bill adds abuse of elders and dependent adults to
section 1109's evidentiary framework. As with domestic violence
evidence, it will permit the admissibility of evidence of the
defendant's prior acts of elder or dependent abuse in order to
AB 2063
Page 4
prove the defendant's conduct. Again as with domestic violence,
it will also preclude such admissibility when the acts occurred
more than 10 years ago, or when the court exercises its
discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude the
evidence of prior acts due to prejudice or other factors.
This statutory approach was upheld just last year in People v.
Poplar (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1137, fn. 6, where the Court
of Appeal held that Evidence Code section 1109 was added by the
Legislature "to permit propensity evidence to prove the current
charge." In that case, a jury convicted defendant of the
forcible rape of his girlfriend with whom he was living. The
trial court admitted evidence of defendant's prior acts of
domestic violence against former girlfriends. The Court of
Appeal affirmed. The court held that the trial court did not err
in admitting evidence of defendant's prior acts of domestic
violence, stating that the evidence was extremely probative,
showing defendant's propensity for violence against domestic
partners, and was not the sort of evidence to evoke an emotional
bias against defendant. ( Id. at 1139.)
Prior Pertinent Legislation :
SB 1682 (Solis) (Ch. 707, Stats. 1998): Required in section
1109 actions that the disclosure of statements of witnesses
comply with specified discovery provisions.
AB 1926 (Wildman) (Ch. 127, Stats. 1998): Limited the use of
evidence of manner of a victim's dress on the issue of consent
in specified sex offense cases.
SB 1876 (Solis) (Ch. 261, Stats.1996): Created the exception to
the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence
for domestic violence cases.
AB 882 (Rogan) (Ch. 439, Stats. 1995): Allowed specified
evidence of another sexual offense to be introduced in the
prosecution of a similar criminal action.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Attorney General
AB 2063
Page 5
Older Women's League of California (OWL)
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334