Bill Text: CA AB1798 | 2019-2020 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: California Racial Justice Act: death penalty.
Sponsorship: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1)
Status: (Failed) 2020-02-03 - From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. [AB1798 Detail]
Download: California-2019-AB1798-Amended.html
|
Amended
IN
Assembly
March 21, 2019 |
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
2019–2020 REGULAR SESSION
| Assembly Bill | No. 1798 |
| Introduced by Assembly Member Levine |
February 22, 2019 |
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1798, as amended, Levine.
Ocean acidification. California Racial Justice Act: death penalty.
Existing law defines first degree murder, in part, as all murder that is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, specified felonies, including arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, and kidnapping. Existing law, as enacted by Proposition 7, approved by the voters at the November 7, 1978, statewide general election, prescribes a penalty for that crime of death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life.
This bill would prohibit a person from being executed pursuant to a judgment that was either sought or obtained on the basis of race if the court makes a finding that race was a significant factor in seeking or imposing the death
penalty. The bill would provide that a finding that race was a significant factor would include statistical evidence or other evidence that death sentences were sought or imposed significantly more frequently upon persons of one race than upon persons of another race or that race was a significant factor in decisions to exercise preemptory challenges during jury selection.
Because this bill would place additional duties on prosecutors, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law requires the Ocean Protection Council, in consultation with the State Coastal Conservancy and other relevant entities, to establish and administer the Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Reduction Program for the purposes of achieving specified goals. Existing law also authorizes the council to develop an ocean acidification and hypoxia science task force to ensure that council decisionmaking is supported by the best available science, and requires the council to take specified actions to address ocean acidification and hypoxia. Existing law imposes these responsibilities only to the extent funding is available for these purposes.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would address ocean acidification.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee:Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 3710) is added to Title 3 of Part 3 of the Penal Code, to read:CHAPTER 3. California Racial Justice Act
3710.
A person shall not be condemned to death or executed pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race.3711.
(a) A finding that race was the basis of a decision to seek or impose a sentence of death may be established if the court finds that race was a significant factor in the decision to either seek or impose the death penalty in the county or the state at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed.(b) Evidence relevant to establish a finding that race was a significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the death penalty in the county or the state at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed may include statistical evidence or other evidence, including, but not limited to, the sworn testimony of attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, jurors, or other members of the criminal justice system, that irrespective of
statutory factors, either of the following applies:
(1) Death sentences were sought or imposed significantly more frequently upon persons of one race than upon persons of another race.
(2) Race was a significant factor in the decision to exercise preemptory challenges during jury selection.
(c) The defendant shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that race was a significant factor in the decision to seek or impose the death penalty in the county or state at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed. The state may offer evidence in rebuttal of the defendant’s evidence, including statistical evidence. If a program to eliminate race as a factor in seeking or imposing the death penalty was in effect in the county or the state at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed in the
defendant’s case, the court may consider that as evidence in rebuttal.
3712.
(a) The defendant shall state with particularity the manner in which the evidence supports the claim that race was a significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the death penalty in the county or the state at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would address ocean acidification.
