Bill Text: CA AB593 | 2011-2012 | Regular Session | Chaptered
Bill Title: Domestic violence: battering: recall and resentencing.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Passed) 2012-09-30 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 803, Statutes of 2012. [AB593 Detail]
Download: California-2011-AB593-Chaptered.html
BILL NUMBER: AB 593 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 803
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 30, 2012
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 30, 2012
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 21, 2012
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 24, 2012
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 21, 2012
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 5, 2012
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 4, 2012
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2011
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Ma
FEBRUARY 16, 2011
An act to amend Section 1473.5 of the Penal Code, relating to
domestic violence.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 593, Ma. Domestic violence: battering: recall and resentencing.
Existing law authorizes every person who is unlawfully imprisoned
or restrained of his or her liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas
corpus to inquire into the cause of that imprisonment or restraint.
Existing law also provides, until January 1, 2020, that a writ of
habeas corpus may be prosecuted on the basis that expert testimony
relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was not
received in evidence at the trial court proceedings relating to a
prisoner's incarceration for the commission of a violent felony
committed prior to August 29, 1996, if there is a reasonable
probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of
conviction, that if the testimony had been admitted, the result of
the proceedings would have been different.
This bill would make the provisions for a writ of habeas corpus
based on intimate partner battering operative indefinitely. The bill
would instead provide that a writ of habeas corpus based on intimate
partner battering may also be prosecuted if competent and substantial
expert testimony relating to intimate partner battering and its
effects was not presented to the trier of fact at the trial court
proceedings, and is of such substance that, had it been presented,
there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence
in the judgment of conviction or sentence, the result of the
proceedings would have been different, and that the burden of proof
in this regard is on the petitioner. The bill would specify that if a
petitioner presented to the trier of fact expert testimony relating
to intimate partner battering and its effects that was not competent
or substantial, having presented that evidence would not be a bar to
granting the petition.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 1473.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
1473.5. (a) A writ of habeas corpus also may be prosecuted on the
basis that competent and substantial expert testimony relating to
intimate partner battering and its effects, within the meaning of
Section 1107 of the Evidence Code, was not presented to the trier of
fact at the trial court proceedings and is of such substance that,
had the competent and substantial expert testimony been presented,
there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence
in the judgment of conviction or sentence, that the result of the
proceedings would have been different. Sections 1260 to 1262,
inclusive, apply to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to this section. As used in this section, "trial court
proceedings" means those court proceedings that occur from the time
the accusatory pleading is filed until and including judgment and
sentence.
(b) This section is limited to violent felonies as specified in
subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 that were committed before August
29, 1996, and that resulted in judgments of conviction or sentence
after a plea or trial as to which expert testimony admissible
pursuant to Section 1107 of the Evidence Code may be probative on the
issue of culpability.
(c) A showing that expert testimony relating to intimate partner
battering and its effects was presented to the trier of fact is not a
bar to granting a petition under this section if that expert
testimony was not competent or substantial. The burden of proof is on
the petitioner to establish a sufficient showing that competent and
substantial expert testimony, of a nature which would be competent
using prevailing understanding of intimate partner battering and its
effects, was not presented to the trier of fact, and had that
evidence been presented, there is a reasonable probability that the
result of the proceedings would have been different.
(d) If a petitioner for habeas corpus under this section has
previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it is grounds
for denial of the new petition if a court determined on the merits in
the prior petition that the omission of expert testimony relating to
battered women's syndrome or intimate partner battering and its
effects at trial was not prejudicial and did not entitle the
petitioner to the writ of habeas corpus.
(e) For purposes of this section, the changes that become
effective on January 1, 2005, are not intended to expand the uses or
applicability of expert testimony on battering and its effects that
were in effect immediately prior to that date in criminal cases.
