Existing law allows for the civil compromise of a misdemeanor offense which has a remedy by a civil action if the person injured by the commission of the misdemeanor appears before the court and acknowledges that they have received satisfaction for the injury. On payment of the costs incurred, existing law allows the court to order all proceedings stayed and discharge the defendant from prosecution. Existing law prohibits civil compromise in certain cases, including, among others, crimes committed riotously, with the intent to commit a felony, or cases involving domestic violence, elder abuse, and child abuse.

This bill would extend civil compromise to be available for any felony that is not violent and that does not require registration as a sex offense, and remove the requirement that the underlying offense has a remedy by a civil action. The bill would additionally remove the prohibition on civil compromise for offenses committed riotously or with the intent to commit a felony, and for offenses involving elder abuse through theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud. The bill would prohibit civil compromise for any crime that results in death. The bill would require the district attorney to notify each person injured by an offense eligible for civil compromise as early as possible, and to convey to the victim any offer of civil compromise made by the defendant, as specified. By expanding the duties of local district attorneys, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would extend civil compromise to include nonmonetary resolutions as a form of satisfaction for the injury, as specified.

Existing law allows for the civil compromise of a misdemeanor offense which has a remedy by a civil action if the person injured by the commission of the misdemeanor appears before the court and acknowledges that they have received satisfaction for the injury. On payment of the costs incurred, existing law allows the court to order all proceedings stayed and discharge the defendant from prosecution. Existing law prohibits civil compromise in certain cases, including, among others, crimes committed riotously, with the intent to commit a felony, or cases involving domestic violence, elder abuse, and child abuse.

This bill would extend civil compromise to be available for any felony that is not violent and that does not require registration as a sex offense, and remove the requirement that the underlying offense has a remedy by a civil action. The bill would additionally remove the prohibition on civil compromise for offenses committed riotously or with the intent to commit a felony, and for offenses involving elder abuse through theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud. The bill would prohibit civil compromise for any crime that results in death. The bill would require the district attorney to notify each person injured by an offense eligible for civil compromise as early as possible, and to convey to the victim any offer of civil compromise made by the defendant, as specified. By expanding the duties of local district attorneys, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would extend civil compromise to include nonmonetary resolutions as a form of satisfaction for the injury, as specified.

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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2024

Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Extends civil compromise eligibility to non-violent and non-sex offense felonies. Specifically, this bill:

1. Expands the cases that may be resolved through civil compromise to include any felony offense that is not a violent felony or one that requires the defendant to register as a sex offender, except as specified.
   
2. Provides that a felony is not eligible for civil compromise where crime results in death.
   
3. Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature, that, if the defense counsel, or the defendant if they are unrepresented, communicates an offer to civilly compromise the case, the district attorney should, in a timely manner, convey to a victim the offer of civil compromise.
   
4. Authorizes the court, if each person injured with respect to a particular offense in the action acknowledges that they have received satisfaction for the injury at any time before the trial, to dismiss the charges in the interests of justice and give reasons on the record.
   
5. Provides that a civil compromise may be granted with respect to some or all of the eligible counts charged in a case in the discretion of the court, and that the order granted for any offense is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.
   
6. Provides that satisfaction for the injury may be demonstrated by payment of a specific sum of money or by other means with the agreement of the injured person, including, but not limited to, nonmonetary resolutions, including but not limited to, community service or repairing or cleaning of property damage.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that any misdemeanor resulting in injury for which there is a civil remedy may be compromised except when committed as follows:
   
   1. By or upon an officer of justice, while in the execution of the duties of his or her office;
      
   2. Riotously;
      
   3. With an intent to commit a felony;
      
   4. In violation of any court order, as specified;
      
   5. By or upon any family or household member or other specified individuals; or,
      
   6. Upon an elder or child, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1377, subds. (a)-(g).)
      
2. Provides that, if the person injured appears before the court in which the action is pending at any time before trial, and acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, in its discretion, on payment of the costs incurred, order all proceedings to be stayed upon the prosecution, and the defendant to be discharged therefrom; but in such case the reasons for the order must be set forth therein, and entered on the minutes. The order is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. (Pen. Code, § 1378.)
   
3. Provides that the purpose of sentencing is public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(1).)
   
4. Creates the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code within the California Law Revision Commission. (Gov. Code, § 8280, subd. (b).)
   
5. Requires the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to study and make recommendations on revision of the Penal Code to establish alternatives to incarceration that will aid in the rehabilitation of offenders and improve the system of parole and probation. (Gov. Code, § 8290.5, subd. (a).)
   
6. Declares the Legislature’s commitment to reducing recidivism among criminal offenders. (Pen. Code, § 3450, subd. (b)(1).)
   
7. Commits the state to reinvesting criminal justice resources to support community corrections programs and evidence-based practices that will achieve improved public safety returns on the state’s substantial investment in its criminal justice system. (Pen. Code, § 3450, subd. (b)(4).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Civil compromise is an alternative resolution to criminal cases in which a judge can agree to dismiss charges if a victim acknowledges that they have received satisfaction, usually achieved through the defendant compensating the victim. This gives victims an active role in the resolution of their case and promotes accountability, empathy, and rehabilitation over punitive measures. Currently this option only exists for misdemeanors but, according the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, extending civil compromise to non-violent, non-sexual felonies would give victims a greater voice in a system which almost exclusively makes choices for them. AB 2456 will include non-sexual, non-violent felonies on the list of crimes which are eligible to be resolved through civil compromise, when chosen by a victim and approved by a judge. This bill will also clarify the definition of “satisfaction” to more clearly allow the use of non-monetary compensation in cases resolved through civil compromise.”
   
2. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code Recommends Expanding Civil Compromise: The Committee on Revision of the Penal Code (CRPC) was established to study and recommend statutory reforms to the Penal Code and associated criminal statutes. (Gov. Code, § 8290.5, subd. (a)(3).) According to the Committee:
   

A concept closely related to restorative justice — civil compromise — has long existed in California’s Penal Code. California’s civil compromise statute dates back to 1872 and allows courts to dismiss most misdemeanor cases if a victim “acknowledges that they have received satisfaction.” Civil compromises typically involve payment to the crime victim from the defendant for damage to property. When a victim agrees to a civil compromise, the judge must decide whether the case is appropriate for dismissal.

Like restorative justice resolutions, civil compromises center a victim’s needs by giving them agency to determine what must be done to repair the harm done. Civil compromises also preserve the historical role of crime victims in the prosecution of criminal offenses. In the early years of the United States’ court system, victims of crime would hire private prosecutors to bring charges against accused persons, often seeking money damages, and move to dismiss when those claims were satisfied. While the private prosecution system had many flaws and was replaced by the state-led prosecution system we have today, courts have long recognized the public policy benefits of checking, rather than encouraging, criminal prosecutions when an offense is between private individuals, and civil compromises are one way to do so.

Expanding the reach of California’s civil compromise laws has the potential to produce some of the same benefits as a traditional restorative justice process by placing a victim in control of tailoring a resolution. The streamlined process allowed by civil compromise may be more attractive to some victims who do not have the resources or interest in engaging in the more involved restorative justice process.

Currently, civil compromise resolutions are limited to misdemeanor offenses. But there are many nonviolent, non-sex offense felonies that could be resolved through civil compromise without damaging public safety including offenses such as vandalism, bicycle theft, car break-ins, and welfare fraud.

Similar to restorative justice, in order for victims of crime to have access to this benefit, they should be informed of its availability early in the process. California should expand the applicability of its civil compromise laws, while leaving in place current law that the final decision on whether to dismiss a case is made by a judge.

(Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, 2022 Annual Report (Dec. 2022) p. 25-26 <http://www.clrc.ca.gov/CRPC/Pub/Reports/CRPC_AR2022.pdf> [last visited Apr. 13, 2024].) The Committee observed that misdemeanors most commonly resolved with civil compromise were hit-and-runs and vandalism. (Id. at p. 26.) The Committee recommended expanding the crimes eligible for civil compromise to include non-violent, non-sex offense felonies. (Id. at p. 25.) This bill would effectuate that recommendation.

1. Argument in Support: According to Californians for Safety and Justice, the bill’s sponsor, “Currently, civil compromise allows courts to dismiss most misdemeanor cases if a victim ‘acknowledges that they have received satisfaction.’ If a victim agrees to a civil compromise, the judge must decide if the case is appropriate for dismissal. Then, satisfaction typically involves payment to the crime victim from the defendant for property damage. This option has long existed in California’s Penal Code - dating back to 1872.
   
   “Like restorative justice resolutions, civil compromises center a victim’s needs by giving them agency to determine what must be done to repair the harm done. It also allows the accused person to be accountable for their actions more meaningfully than the traditional criminal legal system. Civil compromise also offers victims a more active role in the resolution process than the traditional justice system and focuses on repairing harm through a cooperative process. This approach promotes accountability, empathy, and rehabilitation over punitive measures.
   
   “Currently, this option only exists for misdemeanors, but extending civil compromise to nonviolent, nonsexual felonies would give victims a greater voice in a system that almost exclusively makes choices for them. Research has shown that victims and survivors feel a higher degree of satisfaction when opting for resolutions that allow them to have an active and meaningful role in the process of deciding what action would help to repair the harm they suffered. This bill will give victims and survivors greater power in the justice process by expanding the crimes eligible to be resolved through civil compromise and clarifying the definition of satisfaction.”
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to the California Police Chiefs Association, “AB 2456 allows for numerous crimes, including serious felonies pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.7(c), to be dismissed through “civil compromise.” A small sample of Penal Code (P.C.) and Vehicle Code (V.C.) crimes include assault resulting in great bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, residential burglary, and crimes with gang enhancements. Further, the bill drastically changes Penal Code section 1378, no longer requiring the victim to appear before the court and acknowledge s/he has received satisfaction for the injury.
   
   “AB 2456 encourages criminality without consequence by injecting a “buy your way out of your crime through compromise” mentality to avoid responsibility. Because there is no prohibition on the representatives of the offending person from contacting victims, this is going to be an excellent opportunity for defense counsel, defendants, and defendants’ family, friends, and fellow gang members to harass and intimidate victims to try to get them to agree. The more timid victims will be identified as the weak link and harassed – thereby silencing the person harmed.”
   
3. Related Legislation: AB 2833 (McKinnor), would establish that an individual’s participation in and communications related to restorative justice processes are inadmissible in civil and criminal proceedings. AB 2833 is currently pending hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
   
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 60 (Bryan), Chapter 513, Statutes of 2023, established the statutory right of victims of crimes to be informed that community-based restorative justice programs are available to them.
      
   2. AB 2167 (Kalra), Chapter 775, Statutes of 2022, declared the intent of the Legislature that the disposition of any criminal case use the least restrictive means possible, and requires the court presiding over a criminal matter to consider alternatives to incarceration, including, without limitation, collaborative justice court programs, diversion, restorative justice, and probation.
      
   3. AB 2598 (Weber), Chapter 914, Statutes of 2022, requires the Department of Education to develop evidence-based practices for restorative justice practice implementation in schools.
      
   4. AB 1670 (Bryan), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have created the Commission on Alternatives to Incarceration within the California Health and Human Services Agency to research, among other things, restorative justice practices and opportunities. AB 1670 was held on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   5. AB 160 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 771, Statutes of 2022, requires CDCR, if the victim has submitted a request for notice that an offender is being released from CDCR custody, to provide information to the victim about opportunities for victims or their family members to engage in restorative justice programs.
      
   6. SB 678 (Glazer), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have established the Restorative Justice Pilot Program which, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would have required the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to make 5-year grants to up to 3 counties to establish and operate the program. SB 678 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Children's Defense Fund - CA
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Initiate Justice
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Rubicon Programs
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Young Women's Freedom Center

Opposition

California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association

Analysis Prepared by: