Brief Bank # B-537
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PRISCILLA Y. G., ) CASE NO.: BR31839
) A.M.C. : 91M00848
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
Plaintiff and Respondent. )
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LODGED IN CONNECTION
WITH APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
SEYMOUR I. COHEN,
Attorney at Law
18411 Crenshaw Blvd, #411
Torrance, CA 90504
LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE POLICIES
Our experience in providing legislative history since 1974 has led to the development of certain policies which govern our Service. These are the terms and conditions of our relationship with you. We enunciate them here so that you are aware of the basis upon which this research is provided to you.
1. Scope of Analysis: Any analysis provided to you is based upon the circumstances of your case as you have briefly related them to us, as well as a review of the enclosed documents. As such, it is only tentative in nature and should not be considered a legal opinion. A more conclusive statement of the impact of the legislative history in your case would be dependent upon a complete understanding of all of the factual issues involved and the applicable legal principles. You may wish to involve us to this greater extent in order to utilize our skills as expert witnesses. We have had extensive experience in presenting legislative documents to the courts in this role. If you do desire to retain our firm, an additional fee will be required. Please see Follow Up Services.
2. Availability of this Research to All Clients: It is our policy to furnish materials and research to any and all clients who request them. Our services are not available on an exclusive basis. This policy is necessary for two reasons. First, at the time a research request is received, we do not know, and often the requesting attorney does not know, how the materials will be used, whether the research is for, or will result in litigation, and if so who the parties and their counsel would be. Second, availability to all is the only practical approach for an information provider with the high volume of requests which we service. This situation means that we may on occasion end up researching identical issues and providing identical histories for opposing counsel involved in the same or a related case. This result is unavoidable.
712 Main Street, Woodland, CA 95695
(916) 666-1917 · (916) 441-7959 · Cable: Deadcat
December 16, 1992
Mr. Seymour I. Cohen
LAW OFFICES OF SEYMOUR I. COHEN
18411 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 411
Torrance, California 90504-5081
Re: Penal Code Section 422
as amended by Chapter 1256, Statutes of 1988
and Chapter 1135, Statutes of 1989
Dear Mr. Cohen:
You have asked us to research the legislative history of Penal Code Section 422 as amended in 1988 and 1989. In accordance with this request, please find enclosed the following:
EXHIBIT LIST A:
x1. Excerpt regarding Penal Code Section 422 from all versions of Senate Bill 1555 (Robbins-1987);
2. Procedural history of Senate Bill 1555 from the 1987-88 Senate Final History;
3. Three analyses of Senate Bill 1555 prepared for the Senate Committee on Judiciary;
4. Material from the legislative bill file of the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Senate Bill 1555;
5. Two analyses of Senate Bill 1555 prepared by the Legislative Analyst;
6. Third Reading analysis of Senate Bill 1555 prepared by the office of Senate Floor Analyses;
7. Material from the legislative bill file of the Office of Senate Floor Analyses on Senate Bill 1555;
8. Five analyses of Senate Bill 1555 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Public Safety;
9. Material from the legislative bill file of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on Senate Bill 1555;
10. Analysis of Senate Bill 1555 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means;
11. Third Reading analysis of Senate Bill 1555 from the Office of Assembly Floor Analyses;
12. Material from the legislative bill file of the Assembly Republican Caucus on Senate Bill 1555;
13. Unfinished Business analysis of Senate Bill 1555 prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses;
14. Material from the legislative bill file of Senator Alan Robbins on Senate Bill 1555;
15. Post-enrollment documents regarding Senate Bill 1555;
16. Material from the file of the Attorney General on Senate Bill 1555;
17. All versions of Assembly Bill 2013 (Moore-1987);
18. Preliminary pages from Final Report of the California Council on Criminal Justice State Task Force On Youth Gang Violence, January 1986;
19. Preliminary pages from “Report On Youth Gang Violence In California” prepared by the Attorney General’s Youth Gang Task Force, June 1981. EXHIBIT LIST B:
1. All versions of Assembly Bill 1667 (Condit-1989);
2. Procedural history of Assembly Bill 1667 from the 1989-90 Assembly Final History;
3. Two analyses of Assembly Bill 1667 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Public Safety;
4. Material from the legislative bill file of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on Assembly Bill 1667;
5. Two analyses of Assembly Bill 1667 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means;
6. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Bill 1667 from the Office of Assembly Floor Analyses;
7. Analysis of Assembly Bill 1667 prepared for the Senate Committee on Judiciary;
8. Material from the legislative bill file of the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Assembly Bill 1667;
9. Analysis of Assembly Bill 1667 prepared by the Legislative Analyst;
10. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Bill 1667 prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses;
11. Material from the legislative bill file of the office of Senate Floor Analyses on Assembly Bill 1667;
12. Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis of Assembly Bill 1667 from the Office of Assembly Floor Analyses;
13. Post-enrollment documents regarding Assembly Bill 1667;
*14. All versions of Assembly Bill 1665 (Condit‑1989).
x Exhibits preceded by an “x” are excerpts pertaining to the section, sections, subject matter, or topic in which you are interested. The original exhibit is lengthy and may not contain any further discussion relevant to your concern. The entire exhibit, or further portions of it, will be made available at copy cost on your request.
* On examination, we noted these exhibits contain no discussion relevant to your interest in this history. Consequently, exhibits preceded by an “*” have not been included to minimize your copying expense.
Penal Code Section 422 was amended in 1988 by legislative passage of Senate Bill 1555. This measure was carried by Senator Alan Robbins at the request of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office as well as the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. (See Exhibit A, #3a, page 9) The bill became known as the “California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act.” (See Exhibit A, #11) Prior to that ultimate name, however, it was known as the “California Street Terrorism and Anti-Gang Act.” (See Exhibit A, #3) This earlier title better describes the focus of the measure which was to establish specific crimes for gang participation and involvement in gang related criminal activities. (See Exhibit A, #3 and #6)
Senate Bill 1555 was heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Finance. (See Exhibit A, #3 and #5) In the Assembly, the measure was heard before the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. (See Exhibit A, #8 and #10) The bill was approved by the Legislature on September 1, 1988 to be thereafter approved by the Governor on September 23, 1988. Senate Bill 1555 was recorded by the Secretary of State as Chapter 1256 of the Statutes of 1988. (See Exhibit A, #2)
According to an analysis prepared for the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, the purpose of this bill was to respond to the sponsors’ concern that:
“. . . criminal street gangs represent large scale big business and large-scale crime in California, particularly in Los Angeles. . . . In the Los Angeles area, law enforcement officials believe that there are between forty and 50,000 members in about 500 gangs. They linked members of gangs to 186 homicides and over 5000 violent crimes in 1986. Prosecutors and law enforcement have increased efforts in this area, but enhanced prosecution programs have not been effective enough. Although there have been more arrests and convictions of individuals, the sponsors state that the ‘heart of the enterprise’ has yet to be reached. The sponsors state that this bill is intended to reach that goal, and compare it to federal laws targeting organized crime.”
(See Exhibit A, #8a, page 4)
The Los Angeles City Council’s Legislative Representative stated in a letter to Senator Robbins:
“The City of Los Angeles is facing a crisis of increasing street gang crime and is trying to establish a strong deterrent policy, while not punishing for mere membership in a gang. We feel that SB 1555 has these safeguards, and could be an effective tool in our constant struggle with gang-related crimes.”
(See Exhibit A, #9, document AP-4)
In further justification of the bill, the Los Angeles Police Department wrote:
“Persons expert in the field of gang suppression feel strongly that there is a need for laws which focus squarely on gangs and gang membership. They recognize that gangs are formed almost exclusively for criminal pursuits and they believe this proposed legislation will help to break the back of these nefarious organized crime elements.” (See Exhibit A, #9, document AP‑12)
Thus, as you can see, the purpose of Senate Bill 1555 was to attempt to respond to what is perceived to be a crisis caused by violent street gangs in major metropolitan areas. (See Exhibit A, #3c, page 2) It has the support of various police organizations and community groups. Its main opponents were the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and the California Public Defenders Association. (See Exhibit A, #3b)
The legislative materials suggest, but do not directly relate the introduction of this bill to two Reports. The first is the Attorney General’s Gang Task Force Report. (See Exhibit A, #8a, page 4) The second is the Report of the California Council on Criminal Justice, commonly referred to as the “State Task Force on Youth Gang Violence.” (See Exhibit A, #4, document SP-1, #9, document AP-46, and #14, documents A-58 through A-59) We have located copies of these Reports and include preliminary pages from each, as well as all legislative recommendations from them, as Exhibit A, #18 and #19. If you would be interested in having a full copy of either Report, please let us know.
With regards to Penal Code Section 422, an examination of the bill showed its amendment occurred in the first amended version of Senate Bill 1555 on May 22, 1987. (See Exhibit A, #1b, page 27) A nonsubstantive revision to this section occurred while Senate Bill 1555 was in the Assembly on May 2, 1988. (See Exhibit A, #1f) This amendment placed Penal Code Section 422 in a new Title 11.5 entitled “Terrorist Threats.” (See Exhibit A, #1f, pages 20 and 21) Then in the Assembly amendments of August 25, 1988, the section was substantively amended to provide a definition of “immediate family” as well as to delete the provisions making it a crime to make threats which cause the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility used in public transportation; which interfere with essential public services; or which otherwise cause serious disruption of public activities. (See Exhibit A, #1i, pages 13 and 14)
The analyses indicate that the amendments to Penal Code Section 422 were in response to a 1982 California Supreme Court case, People v. Mirmirani 30 C3d 375. (See Exhibit A, #3b, page 7) That case held the section to be unconstitutionally vague and cited language from a federal case which the drafters of the legislation took and placed in the statute verbatim in order to create a constitutionally permissible statute criminalizing threats which pose a danger to society. (See Exhibit A, #3a, page 6; #3b, page 7; #14, documents A-1, A-58 through A-59, and A-65)
With regards to this portion of the bill, Assemblyman Robbins stated:
“… the bill provides for penalties against those persons who terrorize our neighborhoods by threatening criminal activity against innocent citizens.” (See Exhibit A, #14, document A-1)
Elsewhere, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office writes with regards to this portion of the bill stating:
“. . . It would provide a needed tool for enforcement against criminal threats not only by gang members, but also by other terrorist groups or individuals.” (See Exhibit A, #14, document A-66)
The latter thought was expressed more fully in another letter by the office of the City Attorney as follows:
“Penal Code section 422, the ‘Terrorist Threats’ statute, would be amended to remedy the constitutional defects discussed by the California Supreme Court in People v. Mirmirani. The statute, as amended, would provide a valuable weapon for combating gang terrorism, but would apply equally to other terrorist groups.”
(See Exhibit A, #14, document A-59)
You will see references throughout the materials to a competing measure to Senate Bill 1555, Assembly Bill 2013, introduced by Assemblywoman Gwen Moore. (See Exhibit A, #8c, page 9; #9, document AP-46; and #14, document A-1) This measure also became law in 1988. We include a copy of it as Exhibit A, #17.
Examining it closely, you will see that proposals with regards to Penal Code Section 422 were only in the bill for a period of time and ultimately taken out of the measure as it became used for other purposes. (See Exhibit A, #17c through #17g) Should you wish research of this measure, please let us know.
You have also requested the 1989 legislation which amended Penal Code section 422. The bill accomplishing these changes was Assembly Bill 1667, introduced by Assemblyman Gary Condit. (See Exhibit B, #1) Assemblyman Condit carried this measure to make modifications to Health and Safety Code provisions concerning controlled substances. (See Exhibit B, #3 through #8) In amendments taken on August 30, 1989, nonsubstantive modifications were made to Penal Code Section 422. (See Exhibit B, #1d) According to analyses of the measure generated at that point in time the changes to the section were
“. . . nonsubstantive changes to the statute on terrorist threats by correcting a drafting error.” (See Exhibit B, #1)
No further commentary of substance appears in the materials on Penal Code Section 422.
Assembly Bill 1667 was heard in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. (See Exhibit B, #3 and #5) In the Senate, the measure went through the Committee on Judiciary as well as the Committee on Appropriations. (See Exhibit B, #7 and #9) The bill was approved by the Governor on September 29, 1989 and recorded by the Secretary of State on September 30, 1989 as Chapter 1135 of the Statutes Of 1989. (See Exhibit B, #lf and #2)
As we noted above, the amendments to Penal Code Section 422 did not appear until late in the legislative session, August 30, 1989 to be exact. (See Exhibit B, #1d) Assemblyman Condit had another bill before the Legislature in 1989, Assembly Bill 1665, which proposed, as of March of 1989, to make the same changes to Penal Code Section 422. The amendments to Penal Code Section 422 were taken out of Assembly Bill 1665 in the Senate on September 1, 1989. (Exhibit B, #14a and #14b) it appears the amendments were transferred from Assembly Bill 1665 to Assembly Bill 1667.
We have provided no research on Assembly Bill 1665 but we will do so should you consider it relevant to your efforts to understand and apply the statute.
Any analysis provided is based upon the nature and extent of your request to us, as well as our brief review of the enclosed documents. As such, it must be considered tentative in nature. A more conclusive statement of the impact of the legislative history in your case would be dependent upon a complete understanding of all of the factual issues involved and the applicable legal principles. You may wish to involve us to this greater extent in order to utilize our skills as expert witnesses in your case. We have had extensive experience in presenting legislative documents to the courts in this role. (Please see Follow-up Services.) If you do desire to utilize our firm in this capacity, a specific agreement will be required. The fee for this service will be quoted upon request.
Evidence of legislative intent is relied upon in both federal and state courts. For example, in California authority for submission of the enclosed documents to the court as evidence may be found in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1859. Furthermore, California courts are authorized to take judicial notice of evidence of legislative intent pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 452(c). (See Post v. Prati, 90 Cal. App. 3d 626) In addition to the materials already mentioned, points and authorities on statutory and case law authority for the use of legislative documents are included in the package.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this assistance and hope that these efforts will be of value to you.
Very truly yours,
LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE
Jan S. Raymond