Existing law makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. If a defendant is granted probation for a conviction of this offense, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill would delete the requirement that a defendant granted probation complete counseling and would, instead, require the court to order a defendant convicted of specified offenses, including the above-described offense, against animals and granted probation to successfully complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would require the court to consider whether to order the defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. Upon evaluation, if the evaluating mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the bill would require the defendant to complete such treatment as directed by the court. The bill would generally require the defendant to pay for counseling, the mental health evaluation, and subsequent treatment but would exempt a person who meets specified criteria from paying any costs and would otherwise authorize the court to establish a sliding fee schedule based on the defendants ability to pay. The bill would additionally make records related to this evaluation and treatment confidential, as specified.

By requiring local government to offer counseling as part of a defendants probation for a conviction of specified offenses, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.

By excluding relevant evidence from a criminal proceeding, this bill would require a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature.

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.

Existing law makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. If a defendant is granted probation for a conviction of this offense, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill would delete the requirement that a defendant granted probation complete counseling and would, instead, require the court to order a defendant convicted of specified offenses, including the above-described offense, against animals and granted probation to successfully complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would require the court to consider whether to order the defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. Upon evaluation, if the evaluating mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the bill would require the defendant to complete such treatment as directed by the court. The bill would generally require the defendant to pay for counseling, the mental health evaluation, and subsequent treatment but would exempt a person who meets specified criteria from paying any costs and would otherwise authorize the court to establish a sliding fee schedule based on the defendants ability to pay. The bill would additionally make records related to this evaluation and treatment confidential, as specified.

By requiring local government to offer counseling as part of a defendants probation for a conviction of specified offenses, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.

By excluding relevant evidence from a criminal proceeding, this bill would require a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature.

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.

Existing law makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. If a defendant is granted probation for a conviction of this offense, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill would delete the requirement that a defendant granted probation complete counseling and would, instead, require the court to order a defendant convicted of specified offenses, including the above-described offense, against animals and granted probation to successfully complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would require the court to consider whether to order the defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. Upon evaluation, if the evaluating mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the bill would require the defendant to complete such treatment as directed by the court. The bill would generally require the defendant to pay for counseling, the mental health evaluation, and subsequent treatment but would exempt a person who meets specified criteria from paying any costs and would otherwise authorize the court to establish a sliding fee schedule based on the defendants ability to pay. The bill would additionally make records related to this evaluation and treatment confidential, as specified.

By requiring local government to offer counseling as part of a defendants probation for a conviction of specified offenses, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.

By excluding relevant evidence from a criminal proceeding, this bill would require a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature.

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.

Existing law makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. If a defendant is granted probation for a conviction of this offense, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill would delete the requirement that a defendant granted probation complete counseling and would, instead, require the court to order a defendant convicted of specified offenses, including the above-described offense, against animals and granted probation to successfully complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would require the court to consider whether to order the defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. Upon evaluation, if the evaluating mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the bill would require the defendant to complete such treatment as directed by the court. The bill would generally require the defendant to pay for counseling, the mental health evaluation, and subsequent treatment but would exempt a person who meets specified criteria from paying any costs and would otherwise authorize the court to establish a sliding fee schedule based on the defendants ability to pay. The bill would additionally make records related to this evaluation and treatment confidential, as specified.

By requiring local government to offer counseling as part of a defendants probation for a conviction of specified offenses, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

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.

Existing law makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. If a defendant is granted probation for a conviction of this offense, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill would delete the requirement that a defendant granted probation complete counseling and would, instead, require the court to order a defendant convicted of specified offenses, including the above-described offense, against animals and granted probation to successfully complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would require the court, if necessary, court to consider whether to order the defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. Upon evaluation, if the evaluating mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the bill would require the defendant to complete such treatment as directed by the court. The bill would generally require the defendant to pay for counseling, the mental health evaluation, and subsequent treatment but would exempt a person who meets specified criteria from paying any costs and would otherwise authorize the court to establish a sliding fee schedule based on the defendants ability to pay. The bill would additionally make records related to this evaluation and treatment confidential, as specified.

By requiring local government to offer counseling as part of a defendants probation for a conviction of specified offenses, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

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.

Existing law establishes the Department of Justice, and establishes that the department is under the direction and control of the Attorney General. Existing law requires the Attorney General to appoint agents and other employees to carry out the responsibilities of the department.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that provision.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 829

Author:(Waldron)

As Amended Ver:September 8, 2023

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Requires a court to consider ordering a defendant who has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court, if the evaluator deems it necessary.

Senate Amendments

Provide that neither a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, nor the progress reports and records from treatment, can be released or used without the consent of the defendant in any criminal or civil proceedings, rather than just in civil proceedings.

COMMENTS

As Passed by the Assembly: This bill required a court to consider ordering a defendant who has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court, if the evaluator deems it necessary.

Major Provisions

1. Required the court to consider for every defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, whether to order that the person undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. These offenses include:
   1. Sexual contact with an animal;
   2. Willful poisoning of an animal;
   3. Animal cruelty;
   4. Keeping an animal in specified places without proper care; and,
   5. Intentionally causing injury or death to a guide or service dog.
2. Specified that if the mental health evaluator deems a higher level of treatment than general counseling is necessary, the defendant shall complete such treatment as directed by the court.
3. Required the defendant to pay for both any mental health evaluations and any subsequent treatment, but if the court determines that the defendant is unable to pay for that counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's ability to pay.
4. Provided that a person who is receiving specified public benefits or whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current federal poverty guidelines shall not be responsible for any costs.
5. Specified that the required counseling is in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and fine.
6. Made confidential the finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, as well as any progress reports concerning the defendant's treatment, or any other records created pursuant to these provisions, and prohibits their release or use in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

According to the Author

"Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates."

Arguments in Support

According to Social Compassion in Legislation, the sponsor of this bill, "Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Fines, jail time, probation, and forced animal surrender are the primarily utilized options, but may not be enough to address the underlying issues leading to animal abuse. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.

"Thankfully, animal cruelty is a growing issue of concern for law enforcement as well as mental health professionals. In fact, currently more than half of all states now have provisions that allow for courts to order psychiatric evaluation and/or counseling as part of an animal abuser's sentence. Such laws recognize that animal abuse can be a symptom of underlying mental health issues. Offenders who display violence towards animals often subsequently commit violent acts towards humans whether it be child abuse, domestic violence, or, as we saw tragically in Parkland, Florida, mass shootings.

"Mental health evaluations for animal abusers is an important tool that should be available to courts. They are crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue, and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California Public Defenders Association, "While we greatly appreciate the amendments as proposed, AB 829 falls short in protecting the confidentiality of mental health treatment. The bill only provides for confidentiality of the mandatory treatment as it relates to civil proceedings. The bill should be amended to assure that any mandatory mental health treatment is confidential and not discoverable in any civil or criminal proceeding. The need for free exchange in the rare case of the need of mental health evaluation and treatment is paramount in ensuring community trust in health care privacy as well as protecting youth and young people from the lifelong stigma of being diagnosed with a ‘conduct disorder."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to the courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of evaluations and mental health treatment for indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse offenses (local funds, General Fund). Costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay; General Fund costs will depend on whether AB 829 imposes a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-1

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Alanis, Bryan, Lackey, Ortega, Santiago, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bonta

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0-0

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

UPDATED

VERSION: September 8, 2023

CONSULTANT: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002325

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 829

Author: Waldron (R)

Amended: 9/8/23 in Senate

Vote: 27

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/20/23

AYES: Wahab, Ochoa Bogh, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/30/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Crime: animal abuse

SOURCE: Social Compassion in Legislation

DIGEST:

This bill requires a court to consider ordering a defendant who has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court, if the evaluator deems it necessary

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/23 clarify that the records cannot be used in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that any person who sexually assaults any animal for the reason of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 plus approximately 310% penalty assessments for a total fine of $4,100. (Penal Code § 268.5)
2. Provides that every person who, without the consent of the owner, willfully administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 596)
3. Provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street etc. without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597.1)
4. Provides that every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county etc. without proper care and attention shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597f)
5. Provides that any person who injures a police dog or horse is guilty of a misdemeanor or, if the injury is serious, a wobbler. The penalty for the misdemeanors are punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 600)
6. Provides that if a person is granted probation for maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding or killing an animal, he or she shall order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Penal Code § 597)

This bill:

1. Deletes the counseling and treatment requirement.
2. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for:
   1. Sexually assaulting an animal;
   2. Poisoning an animal;
   3. Improperly caring for an animal;
   4. Maliciously and intentionally injuring an animal;
   5. Overworking an animal; or,
   6. Intentionally injuring or killing a guide dog, the court shall order the convicted person to successfully complete counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders, unless the defendant is ordered to complete treatment.
3. Provides that the court shall consider whether to order the convicted person to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court.
4. Provides that if after evaluation, the mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the defendant shall complete the treatment as ordered by the court.
5. Provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.
6. Provides that an indigent defendant shall not be responsible for any costs.
7. Provides that a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment or any other records created pursuant to this section, shall be confidential and shall not be released or used in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

Comments

According to the author, “Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to the courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of evaluations and mental health treatment for indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse offenses (local funds, General Fund). Costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay; General Fund costs will depend on whether AB 829 imposes a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/23)

Social Compassion in Legislation (source)

4 Dogs Farm Rescue

Animal Place

Animal Welfare Data Center

Animals & Society Institute

Association for Parrot Care

CAUSE for SB Paws

Central Coast Herding Dog Rescue

Clinical Sierra Vista

Compassionate Bay

Depression Bipolar Support Alliance California

Do Good International

Faith Action for All

Feline the Love

Feral Cat Support

Fresno Furry Friends, Inc.

Fresno TNR

Front Harness by the Front Dog

Gingeroo Animal Rescue Network

Grassroots Coalition

Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative

Holstein Haven Calf Rescue

Humane Decisions

In Defense of Animals

Lockwood Animal Rescue Center

Los Angeles Alliance for Animals

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office

Los Gatos Plant-Based Advocates

Mendocino Coast Humane Society

Mendocino Feral Cat Alliance

Michelson Center for Public Policy

Milo Foundation

One Love CBD

Our Honor

Outta the Cage

Partners in Animal Care & Compassion

Pink Paws for the CAUSE

Plant-Based Advocates - Los Gatos

Project Minnie

Rabbits in Need, Inc.

Saving Grace LA Animal Rescue

Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue

Singer Sanctuary

Starfish Animal Rescue

Start Rescue

Take Me Home

The Animal Rescue Mission

The Frank and Lucy Project

TippedEars

Urban Panthers Rescue

Vegan Flag

Ventura County Animal Services

Women United for Animal Welfare

622 individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/23)

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Political Animals / Roar

San Francisco Public Defender

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Many of the supporters of this bill signed a coalition letter stating in part:

Thankfully, animal cruelty is a growing issue of concern for law enforcement as well as mental health professionals. In fact, currently more than half of all states now have provisions that allow for courts to order psychiatric evaluation and/or counseling as part of an animal abuser’s sentence. Such laws recognize that animal abuse can be a symptom of underlying mental health issues. Offenders who display violence towards animals often subsequently commit violent acts towards humans whether it be child abuse, domestic violence, or, as we saw tragically in Parkland, Florida, mass shootings.

Mental health evaluations for animal abusers is an important tool that should be available to courts. They are crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue, and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice oppose this bill stating:

Under California law, conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality. Conditions of probation will not be found invalid unless they have no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, relate to conduct, which is not in itself criminal, or require (or forbid) conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. CACJ feels that, as written, AB 829 has the potential for misuse or abuse in that invite, upon a standardless finding of necessity, a single evaluator, whose methods, and scope of discretion are unspecified, to recommend the imposition or requirement for participation in treatment that is completely unrelated to the prevention of any future criminality.

AB 829 would eliminate Penal Code Section 597(h) and create Penal Code Section 600.8 instead. Penal Code Section 600.8 would, in turn, re-enact certain provisions of Penal Code Section 597(h) while broadening its scope to include application to cases involving police dogs and horses (formerly expressly precluded by the Legislature) and to allow the opinion of a single mental health evaluator chosen by the court to dictate unspecified higher levels of treatment than were formerly required as terms of probation. AB 829 would also make the records of these court ordered evaluations and treatment confidential.

CACJ recognizes the Legislature’s past desire to provide effective treatment to those persons who commit animal cruelty due to behavior or conduct disorders to prevent recidivist behavior. Unfortunately, AB 829 vastly exceeds the scope of that legitimate goal and invites courts to make standardless findings to engage unspecified evaluators to decide who gets what treatment and what that treatment will consist of in an overbroad range of cases. Unlike existing law, the scope of AB 829 is virtually guaranteed to cause courts to find necessity on an ad hoc basis to engage unqualified or even unethical evaluators. Courts should not rely upon ad hoc determinations or conjecture in fashioning probation terms. As written AB 829 invites poor if not deleterious outcomes where court impose terms that have no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, relate to conduct which is not in itself criminal and require expensive treatment that fails to prevent recidivist cruelty.

It should be noted that CACJ does embrace the confidentiality requirements engrafted by AB 829. CACJ further recommends that AB 829 might be better conceived in a fashion where courts are given a pre-conviction threshold standard for a finding a necessity such as whether any of the charged offenses would preclude a grant of diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36(d). If not, the law might allow the court to offer, on a financial sliding scale, defendants who face animal cruelty charges, the opportunity to seek a confidential preliminary diagnosis by a qualified mental health expert such as is defined in Penal Code Section 1001.36(f)(2). Qualifying confidential diagnoses should then be made available for use by such defendants and their counsel so they may choose whether to make prima facie showing for meeting the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion under Penal Code §1001.36.

CACJ believes that there is no logical reason to require conviction as a gateway to treatment for those animal cruelty offenders who suffer from one or more diagnoses for which the Legislature has already designed the Penal Code §1001.36 mental health diversion as an appropriate pathway to wellness. Such a restructuring of AB 824 would enable our courts to more effectively supervise and assist those whose evaluations indicate eligibility to qualify for and to receive the benefit of approved treatments supervised by qualified mental health experts. Thus, we believe the Legislature can better achieve the purpose of mitigating the entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting a civilized society that consistently seeks to protect animal welfare. If someone needs the treatment contemplated by AB 829, then they will be far more likely to get that treatment and to mitigate future risk by being diverted under Penal Code Section 1001.36.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/30/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

9/11/23 12:48:36

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 829

Author: Waldron (R)

Amended: 9/1/23 in Senate

Vote: 27

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/20/23

AYES: Wahab, Ochoa Bogh, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/30/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Crime: animal abuse

SOURCE: Social Compassion in Legislation

DIGEST:

This bill requires a court to consider ordering a defendant who has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court, if the evaluator deems it necessary

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that any person who sexually assaults any animal for the reason of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 plus approximately 310% penalty assessments for a total fine of $4,100. (Penal Code § 268.5)
2. Provides that every person who, without the consent of the owner, willfully administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to si months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 596)
3. Provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street etc. without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597.1)
4. Provides that every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county etc. without proper care and attention shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597f)
5. Provides that any person who injures a police dog or horse is guilty of a misdemeanor or, if the injury is serious, a wobbler. The penalty for the misdemeanors are punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 600)
6. Provides that if a person is granted probation for maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding or killing an animal, he or she shall order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Penal Code § 597)

This bill:

1. Deletes the counseling and treatment requirement.
2. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for:
   1. Sexually assaulting an animal;
   2. Poisoning an animal;
   3. Improperly caring for an animal;
   4. Maliciously and intentionally injuring an animal;
   5. Overworking an animal; or,
   6. Intentionally injuring or killing a guide dog, the court shall order the convicted person to successfully complete counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders, unless the defendant is ordered to complete treatment.
3. Provides that the court shall consider whether to order the convicted person to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court.
4. Provides that if after evaluation, the mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the defendant shall complete the treatment as ordered by the court.
5. Provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.
6. Provides that an indigent defendant shall not be responsible for any costs.
7. Provides that a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment or any other records created pursuant to this section, shall be confidential and shall not be released or used for any purpose without the defendant’s consent.

Background

According to the author:

Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to the courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of evaluations and mental health treatment for indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse offenses (local funds, General Fund). Costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay; General Fund costs will depend on whether AB 829 imposes a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/23)

Social Compassion in Legislation (source)

4 Dogs Farm Rescue

622 Individuals

Animal Place

Animal Welfare Data Center

Animals & Society Institute

Association for Parrot Care

CAUSE for SB Paws

Central Coast Herding Dog Rescue

Clinical Sierra Vista

Compassionate Bay

Depression Bipolar Support Alliance California

Do Good International

Faith Action for All

Feline the Love

Feral Cat Support

Fresno Furry Friends, Inc.

Fresno TNR

Front Harness by the Front Dog

Gingeroo Animal Rescue Network

Grassroots Coalition

Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative

Holstein Haven Calf Rescue

Humane Decisions

In Defense of Animals

Lockwood Animal Rescue Center

Los Angeles Alliance for Animals

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office

Los Gatos Plant-based Advocates

Mendocino Coast Humane Society

Mendocino Feral Cat Alliance

Michelson Center for Public Policy

Milo Foundation

One Love CBD

Our Honor

Outta the Cage

Partners in Animal Care & Compassion

Pink Paws for The CAUSE

Plant-Based Advocates - Los Gatos

Project Minnie

Rabbits in Need, Inc.

Saving Grace LA Animal Rescue

Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue

Singer Sanctuary

Starfish Animal Rescue

Start Rescue

Take Me Home

The Animal Rescue Mission

The Frank and Lucy Project

Tippedears

Urban Panthers Rescue

Vegan Flag

Ventura County Animal Services

Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/23)

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Political Animals / Roar

San Francisco Public Defender

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Many of the supporters of this bill signed a coalition letter stating in part:

Thankfully, animal cruelty is a growing issue of concern for law enforcement as well as mental health professionals. In fact, currently more than half of all states now have provisions that allow for courts to order psychiatric evaluation and/or counseling as part of an animal abuser’s sentence. Such laws recognize that animal abuse can be a symptom of underlying mental health issues. Offenders who display violence towards animals often subsequently commit violent acts towards humans whether it be child abuse, domestic violence, or, as we saw tragically in Parkland, Florida, mass shootings.

Mental health evaluations for animal abusers is an important tool that should be available to courts. They are crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue, and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice oppose this bill stating:

Under California law, conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality. Conditions of probation will not be found invalid unless they have no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, relate to conduct, which is not in itself criminal, or require (or forbid) conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. CACJ feels that, as written, AB 829 has the potential for misuse or abuse in that invite, upon a standardless finding of necessity, a single evaluator, whose methods, and scope of discretion are unspecified, to recommend the imposition or requirement for participation in treatment that is completely unrelated to the prevention of any future criminality.

AB 829 would eliminate Penal Code Section 597(h) and create Penal Code Section 600.8 instead. Penal Code Section 600.8 would, in turn, re-enact certain provisions of Penal Code Section 597(h) while broadening its scope to include application to cases involving police dogs and horses (formerly expressly precluded by the Legislature) and to allow the opinion of a single mental health evaluator chosen by the court to dictate unspecified higher levels of treatment than were formerly required as terms of probation. AB 829 would also make the records of these court ordered evaluations and treatment confidential.

CACJ recognizes the Legislature’s past desire to provide effective treatment to those persons who commit animal cruelty due to behavior or conduct disorders to prevent recidivist behavior. Unfortunately, AB 829 vastly exceeds the scope of that legitimate goal and invites courts to make standardless findings to engage unspecified evaluators to decide who gets what treatment and what that treatment will consist of in an overbroad range of cases. Unlike existing law, the scope of AB 829 is virtually guaranteed to cause courts to find necessity on an ad hoc basis to engage unqualified or even unethical evaluators. Courts should not rely upon ad hoc determinations or conjecture in fashioning probation terms. As written AB 829 invites poor if not deleterious outcomes where court impose terms that have no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, relate to conduct which is not in itself criminal and require expensive treatment that fails to prevent recidivist cruelty.

It should be noted that CACJ does embrace the confidentiality requirements engrafted by AB 829. CACJ further recommends that AB 829 might be better conceived in a fashion where courts are given a pre-conviction threshold standard for a finding a necessity such as whether any of the charged offenses would preclude a grant of diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36(d). If not, the law might allow the court to offer, on a financial sliding scale, defendants who face animal cruelty charges, the opportunity to seek a confidential preliminary diagnosis by a qualified mental health expert such as is defined in Penal Code Section 1001.36(f)(2). Qualifying confidential diagnoses should then be made available for use by such defendants and their counsel so they may choose whether to make prima facie showing for meeting the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion under Penal Code §1001.36.

CACJ believes that there is no logical reason to require conviction as a gateway to treatment for those animal cruelty offenders who suffer from one or more diagnoses for which the Legislature has already designed the Penal Code §1001.36 mental health diversion as an appropriate pathway to wellness. Such a restructuring of AB 824 would enable our courts to more effectively supervise and assist those whose evaluations indicate eligibility to qualify for and to receive the benefit of approved treatments supervised by qualified mental health experts. Thus, we believe the Legislature can better achieve the purpose of mitigating the entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting a civilized society that consistently seeks to protect animal welfare. If someone needs the treatment contemplated by AB 829, then they will be far more likely to get that treatment and to mitigate future risk by being diverted under Penal Code Section 1001.36.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/30/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

9/2/23 16:57:47

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 829 (Waldron) - Crime: animal abuse

Bill Summary:

AB 829 would require the court to consider whether to order a person convicted of specified animal abuse offenses to undergo a mental health evaluation, and if the evaluator deems it necessary, the bill would require the defendant to complete treatment as directed.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on September 1, 2023

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to the courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of evaluations and mental health treatment for indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse offenses (local funds, General Fund). Costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay; General Fund costs will depend on whether AB 829 imposes a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

Author Amendments:

Specify that a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment, or any other records created pursuant to this bill, are confidential and may not be released or used for any purpose without the defendant’s consent.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 829 (Waldron) - Crime: animal abuse

Bill Summary:

AB 829 would require the court to consider whether to order a person convicted of specified animal abuse offenses to undergo a mental health evaluation, and if the evaluator deems it necessary, the bill would require the defendant to complete treatment as directed by the court.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to the courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of evaluations and mental health treatment for indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse offenses (local funds, General Fund). Costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay; General Fund costs will depend on whether AB 829 imposes a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

Background:

Existing law provides that if a defendant is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction, the court must order the defendant to pay for, and successfully complete, counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. Cases involving animal cruelty can vary significantly in terms of their nature and severity. Some cases involve simple neglect where an animal is not provided proper food or care, while others involve significant, intentional acts of cruelty. Current law imposes a mandatory sentencing requirement of counseling. A mandatory sentencing requirement does not necessarily fit the needs or circumstances of all cases of animal cruelty.

This bill would require the court to consider a mental health evaluation for a defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, including several that do not currently require mandatory counseling. This bill would not make the mental health evaluation mandatory. However, if a mental health evaluation is conducted and the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant must complete counseling as a condition of probation. This bill would provide that that a person who is receiving specified public benefits, such as supplemental security income, supplemental nutrition assistance program, Medi-Cal, and unemployment compensation, or a person whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current federal poverty guidelines shall not be responsible for any costs of counseling or treatment.

Proposed Law:

• Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for: sexually assaulting an animal; poisoning an animal; improperly caring for an animal; maliciously and intentionally injuring an animal; overworking an animal; or, intentionally injuring or killing a guide dog, the court shall order the convicted person to successfully complete counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders, unless the defendant is ordered to complete treatment.
• Provides that the court shall consider whether to order the convicted person to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court.
• Provides that if after evaluation, the mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the defendant shall complete the treatment as ordered by the court.
• Provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.
• Provides that an indigent defendant shall not be responsible for any costs.
• Provides that a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment or any other records created pursuant to this section, shall be confidential and shall not be released or used in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

Related Legislation:

• SB 580 (Wilk), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. SB 580 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• SB 1024 (Wilk), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was also substantially similar to this bill. SB 1024 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 829 Hearing Date: June 20, 2023

Subject: Crime: animal abuse

HISTORY

Source: Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL)

Prior Legislation: SB 580 (Wilk) Held Assembly Approps. 2020

AB 611 (Nazarian), Chapter 613, Stats. 2019

SB 1024 (Wilk) Held Assembly Approps. 2018

AB 3040 (Nazarian) Held Senate Approps. 2018

Support: 4 Dogs Farm Rescue; Animal Place; Animal Welfare Data Center; Animals & Society Institute; Association for Parrot Care; Case for SB Paws; Central Coast Herding Dog Rescue; Clinical Sierra Vista; Compassionate Bay; Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance California; Do Good International; Faith Action for All; Feline the Love; Feral Cat Support; Fresno Furry Friends, INC.; Fresno T.N.R.; Front Harness by The Front Dog; Gingeroo Animal Rescue Network; Grassroots Coalition; Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative; Holstein Haven Calf Rescue; Humane Decisions; In Defense of Animals; Lockwood Animal Rescue Center; Los Angeles Alliance for Animals; Los Gatos Plant-based Advocates; Mendocino Coast Humane Society; Mendocino Feral Cat Alliance; Michelson Center for Public Policy; Milo Foundation; One Love CBD; Our Honor; Outta the Cage; Partners in Animal Care & Compassion; Pink Paws for the CAUSE; Plant-based Advocates-Los Gatos; Project Minnie; Rabbits in Need, INC.; Saving Grace LA Animal Rescue; Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue; Singer Sanctuary; Starfish Animal Rescue; Start Rescue; Take Me Home; The Animal Rescue Mission; The Frank and Lucy Project; Tippedears; Urban Panthers Rescue; Vegan Flag; Ventura County Animal Services; Women United for Animal Welfare; Over 600 Individuals

Opposition: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Political Animals / Roar; San Francisco Public Defender; California Public Defenders Association (unless amended)

Assembly Floor Vote: 80 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require a court to consider ordering a defendant who has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court, if the evaluator deems it necessary

Existing law provides that any person who sexually assaults any animal for the reason of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 plus approximately 310% penalty assessments for a total fine of $4,100. (Penal Code § 268.5)

Existing law provides that every person who, without the consent of the owner, willfully administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 596)

Existing law provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street etc. without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597.1)

Existing law provides that every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county etc. without proper care and attention shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597f)

Existing law provides that any person who injures a police dog or horse is guilty of a misdemeanor or, if the injury is serious, a wobbler. The penalty for the misdemeanors are punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 600)

Existing law provides that if a person is granted probation for maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding or killing an animal, he or she shall order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Penal Code § 597)

This bill deletes the counseling and treatment requirement.

This bill provides that when a defendant is granted probation for: sexually assaulting an animal; poisoning an animal; improperly caring for an animal; maliciously and intentionally injuring an animal; overworking an animal; or, intentionally injuring or killing a guide dog, the court shall order the convicted person to successfully complete counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders, unless the defendant is ordered to complete treatment.

This bill provides that the court shall consider whether to order the convicted person to undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court.

This bill provides that if after evaluation, the mental health professional deems a higher level of treatment is necessary, the defendant shall complete the treatment as ordered by the court.

This bill provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.

This bill provides that an indigent defendant shall not be responsible for any costs.

This bill provides that a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment or any other records created pursuant to this section, shall be confidential and shall not be released or used in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.

2. Mental Health Evaluation

Under existing law if a person is granted probation for animal cruelty the court shall order the person to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The current counseling requirement is not tailored to the individual case, the circumstances of which can vary tremendously.

This bill would that if granted probation the person be ordered to successfully complete counseling as determined by the court and requires the court to consider a mental health evaluation for a defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, including several that do not currently require mandatory counseling. This bill would not make the mental health evaluation mandatory. However, if a mental health evaluation is conducted and the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant must complete counseling as a condition of probation. This bill does not dictate the higher level of treatment to be ordered, but rather leaves that determination to the court.

3. Ability to Pay Provisions

Existing law provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for that counseling related to a conviction for animal cruelty, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's ability to pay. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).) Existing law allows an indigent defendant to negotiate a deferred payment plan, but requires the defendant to pay a nominal fee if able to do so. (Ibid.)

This bill would provide that that a person who is receiving specified public benefits, such as supplemental security income, supplemental nutrition assistance program, Medi-Cal, and unemployment compensation, or a person whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current federal poverty guidelines shall not be responsible for any costs of counseling or treatment.

4. Confidentiality

This bill provides that the finding that a defendant suffers from a mental disorder, progress reports concerning the treatment, or any other related records shall be confidential and not be released or used in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent. The Public Defenders Association would like the confidentiality provisions extended to criminal proceedings.

5. Argument in Support

Many of the supporters of this bill signed a coalition letter stating in part:

Thankfully, animal cruelty is a growing issue of concern for law enforcement as well as mental health professionals. In fact, currently more than half of all states now have provisions that allow for courts to order psychiatric evaluation and/or counseling as part of an animal abuser’s sentence. Such laws recognize that animal abuse can be a symptom of underlying mental health issues. Offenders who display violence towards animals often subsequently commit violent acts towards humans whether it be child abuse, domestic violence, or, as we saw tragically in Parkland, Florida, mass shootings.

Mental health evaluations for animal abusers is an important tool that should be available to courts. They are crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue, and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims.

6. Argument in Opposition

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice opposes this bill stating:

Under California law, conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality. Conditions of probation will not be found invalid unless they have no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, relate to conduct, which is not in itself criminal, or require (or forbid) conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. CACJ feels that, as written, AB 829 has the potential for misuse or abuse in that invite, upon a standardless finding of necessity, a single evaluator, whose methods, and scope of discretion are unspecified, to recommend the imposition or requirement for participation in treatment that is completely unrelated to the prevention of any future criminality.

AB 829 would eliminate Penal Code Section 597(h) and create Penal Code Section 600.8 instead. Penal Code Section 600.8 would, in turn, re-enact certain provisions of Penal Code Section 597(h) while broadening its scope to include application to cases involving police dogs and horses (formerly expressly precluded by the Legislature) and to allow the opinion of a single mental health evaluator chosen by the court to dictate unspecified higher levels of treatment than were formerly required as terms of probation. AB 829 would also make the records of these court ordered evaluations and treatment confidential.

CACJ recognizes the Legislature’s past desire to provide effective treatment to those persons who commit animal cruelty due to behavior or conduct disorders to prevent recidivist behavior. Unfortunately, AB 829 vastly exceeds the scope of that legitimate goal and invites courts to make standardless findings to engage unspecified evaluators to decide who gets what treatment and what that treatment will consist of in an overbroad range of cases. Unlike existing law, the scope of AB 829 is virtually guaranteed to cause courts to find necessity on an ad hoc basis to engage unqualified or even unethical evaluators. Courts should not rely upon ad hoc determinations or conjecture in fashioning probation terms. As written AB 829 invites poor if not deleterious outcomes where court impose terms that have no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, relate to conduct which is not in itself criminal and require expensive treatment that fails to prevent recidivist cruelty.

It should be noted that CACJ does embrace the confidentiality requirements engrafted by AB 829. CACJ further recommends that AB 829 might be better conceived in a fashion where courts are given a pre-conviction threshold standard for a finding a necessity such as whether any of the charged offenses would preclude a grant of diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36(d). If not, the law might allow the court to offer, on a financial sliding scale, defendants who face animal cruelty charges, the opportunity to seek a confidential preliminary diagnosis by a qualified mental health expert such as is defined in Penal Code Section 1001.36(f)(2). Qualifying confidential diagnoses should then be made available for use by such defendants and their counsel so they may choose whether to make prima facie showing for meeting the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion under Penal Code §1001.36.

CACJ believes that there is no logical reason to require conviction as a gateway to treatment for those animal cruelty offenders who suffer from one or more diagnoses for which the Legislature has already designed the Penal Code §1001.36 mental health diversion as an appropriate pathway to wellness. Such a restructuring of AB 824 would enable our courts to more effectively supervise and assist those whose evaluations indicate eligibility to qualify for and to receive the benefit of approved treatments supervised by qualified mental health experts. Thus, we believe the Legislature can better achieve the purpose of mitigating the entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting a civilized society that consistently seeks to protect animal welfare. If someone needs the treatment contemplated by AB 829, then they will be far more likely to get that treatment and to mitigate future risk by being diverted under Penal Code Section 1001.36.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 829

Author:(Waldron)

As Amended Ver:April 13, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a court to consider ordering a defendant who has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court, if the evaluator deems it necessary.

Major Provisions

1. Requires the court to consider for every defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, whether to order that the person undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. These offenses include:
   1. Sexual contact with an animal;
   2. Willful poisoning of an animal;
   3. Animal cruelty;
   4. Keeping an animal in specified places without proper care; and,
   5. Intentionally causing injury or death to a guide or service dog.
2. Specifies that if the mental health evaluator deems a higher level of treatment than general counseling is necessary, the defendant shall complete such treatment as directed by the court.
3. Requires the defendant to pay for both any mental health evaluations and any subsequent treatment, but if the court determines that the defendant is unable to pay for that counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's ability to pay.
4. Provides that a person who is receiving specified public benefits or whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current federal poverty guidelines shall not be responsible for any costs.
5. Specifies that the required counseling is in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and fine.
6. Makes confidential the finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, as well as any progress reports concerning the defendant's treatment, or any other records created pursuant to these provisions, and prohibits their release or use in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates."

Arguments in Support

According to Social Compassion in Legislation, the sponsor of this bill, "Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Fines, jail time, probation, and forced animal surrender are the primarily utilized options, but may not be enough to address the underlying issues leading to animal abuse. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.

"Thankfully, animal cruelty is a growing issue of concern for law enforcement as well as mental health professionals. In fact, currently more than half of all states now have provisions that allow for courts to order psychiatric evaluation and/or counseling as part of an animal abuser's sentence. Such laws recognize that animal abuse can be a symptom of underlying mental health issues. Offenders who display violence towards animals often subsequently commit violent acts towards humans whether it be child abuse, domestic violence, or, as we saw tragically in Parkland, Florida, mass shootings.

"Mental health evaluations for animal abusers is an important tool that should be available to courts. They are crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue, and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California Public Defenders Association, "While we greatly appreciate the amendments as proposed, AB 829 falls short in protecting the confidentiality of mental health treatment. The bill only provides for confidentiality of the mandatory treatment as it relates to civil proceedings. The bill should be amended to assure that any mandatory mental health treatment is confidential and not discoverable in any civil or criminal proceeding. The need for free exchange in the rare case of the need of mental health evaluation and treatment is paramount in ensuring community trust in health care privacy as well as protecting youth and young people from the lifelong stigma of being diagnosed with a ‘conduct disorder."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs (General Fund/local funds/Trial Court Trust Fund), possibly in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the trial courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of mental health evaluation and, if necessary, mental health treatment for indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse offenses. Possible costs to the courts or a local mandate to county mental health programs will depend on the actual implementation and are subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. Actual costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-1

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Alanis, Bryan, Lackey, Ortega, Santiago, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bonta

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: April 13, 2023

CONSULTANT: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000708

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 829

Author:(Waldron) – As Amended Ver:April 13, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

The bill allows a court to consider requiring a defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation if the defendant was convicted of certain animal abuse crimes and granted probation and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court if the mental health evaluator deems it necessary.

The bill allows the court to determine whether the defendant must pay for the mental health evaluation and counseling, either in full or on a sliding scale, based on the defendant’s financial status, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs (General Fund/local funds/Trial Court Trust Fund), possibly in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the trial courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of mental health evaluation and, if necessary, mental health treatment for indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse offenses. Possible costs to the courts or a local mandate to county mental health programs will depend on the actual implementation and are subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. Actual costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.

1. Background. Existing law requires a court to order a defendant to complete and pay for counseling if the defendant is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction. This bill would require the court to consider a mental health evaluation for a defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, including several that do not currently require mandatory counseling. This bill would not make the mental health evaluation mandatory. However, if a mental health evaluation is conducted and the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant must complete counseling as a condition of probation. The bill allows the court to determine, based on specified information about the defendant’s financial status, whether the defendant must pay for the mental health evaluation and counseling, or whether they must be provided to the defendant at no cost or on a sliding fee scale.
2. Prior Legislation. SB 580 (Wilk), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. SB 580 was held in this committee.
   

SB 1024 (Wilk), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was also substantially similar to this bill. SB 1024 was held in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Chief Counsel: Sandy Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 829

Author:(Waldron) – As Amended Ver:April 13, 2023

SUMMARY: Requires a court to consider ordering a defendant who has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, and requires the defendant to complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court, if the evaluator deems it necessary.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the court to consider for every defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, whether to order that the person undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court. These offenses include:
   
   1. Sexual contact with an animal;
      
   2. Willful poisoning of an animal;
      
   3. Animal cruelty;
      
   4. Keeping an animal in specified places without proper care; and,
      
   5. Intentionally causing injury or death to a guide or service dog.
      
2. Specifies that if the mental health evaluator deems a higher level of treatment than general counseling is necessary, the defendant shall complete such treatment as directed by the court.
   
3. Requires the defendant to pay for both any mental health evaluations and any subsequent treatment, but if the court determines that the defendant is unable to pay for that counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant’s ability to pay.
   
4. Provides that a person who is receiving specified public benefits or whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current federal poverty guidelines shall not be responsible for any costs.
   
5. Specifies that the required counseling is in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and fine.
   
6. Makes confidential the finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, as well as any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment, or any other records created pursuant to these provisions, and prohibits their release or use in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a person who has sexual contact with an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 286.5.)
2. Provides that a person who, without the consent of the owner, willfully administers poison to any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 596.)
3. Provides that an owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, or other specified places without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597.1.)
   
4. Provides that a person who intentionally causes injury to, or the death of, a guide, signal, or service dog is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 600.5.)
   
5. Provides that a person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of animal cruelty. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (a).)
   
6. Punishes a violation of animal cruelty as a felony with imprisonment in the county jail under realignment, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both; or alternatively, as a misdemeanor with imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (d).)
   
7. States that if a defendant is granted probation for a conviction animal cruelty, the court shall order the defendant to pay for, and successfully complete, counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
8. States that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for that counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's ability to pay. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
9. Specifies that the counseling shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and any fine. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, ““Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.”
   
2. Current Counseling Requirements for Animal Abuse Cases: Existing law provides that if a defendant is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction, the court must order the defendant to pay for, and successfully complete, counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)

Cases involving animal cruelty can vary significantly in terms of their nature and severity. Some cases involve simple neglect where an animal is not provided proper food or care, while others involve significant intentional acts of cruelty. Current law imposes a mandatory sentencing requirement of counseling. That mandatory sentencing requirement does not necessarily fit the needs or circumstances of all cases of animal cruelty. “Society receives maximum protection when the penalty, treatment or disposition of the offender is tailored to the individual case. Only the trial judge has the knowledge, ability and tools at hand to properly individualize the treatment of the offender." (People v. Williams (1970) 30 Cal.3d 470,482, citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)

This bill would require the court to consider a mental health evaluation for a defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, including several that do not currently require mandatory counseling. This bill would not make the mental health evaluation mandatory. However, if a mental health evaluation is conducted and the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant must complete counseling as a condition of probation. This bill does not dictate the higher level of treatment to be ordered, but rather leaves that determination to the court.

1. Ability to Pay Provisions: Existing law provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for that counseling related to a conviction for animal cruelty, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's ability to pay. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).) Existing law allows an indigent defendant to negotiate a deferred payment plan, but requires the defendant to pay a nominal fee if able to do so. (Ibid.)
   
   This bill would provide that that a person who is receiving specified public benefits, such as supplemental security income, supplemental nutrition assistance program, Medi-Cal, and unemployment compensation, or a person whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current federal poverty guidelines shall not be responsible for any costs of counseling or treatment.
   
2. Argument in Support: According to Social Compassion in Legislation, the sponsor of this bill, “Over the past 30 years, researchers and professionals in a variety of human services and animal welfare disciplines have established significant correlations between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Despite the recognition of this correlation, current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Fines, jail time, probation, and forced animal surrender are the primarily utilized options, but may not be enough to address the underlying issues leading to animal abuse. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.
   
   “Thankfully, animal cruelty is a growing issue of concern for law enforcement as well as mental health professionals. In fact, currently more than half of all states now have provisions that allow for courts to order psychiatric evaluation and/or counseling as part of an animal abuser’s sentence. Such laws recognize that animal abuse can be a symptom of underlying mental health issues. Offenders who display violence towards animals often subsequently commit violent acts towards humans whether it be child abuse, domestic violence, or, as we saw tragically in Parkland, Florida, mass shootings.
   
   “Mental health evaluations for animal abusers is an important tool that should be available to courts. They are crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue, and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: According to the California Public Defenders Association, “While we greatly appreciate the amendments as proposed, AB 829 falls short in protecting the confidentiality of mental health treatment. The bill only provides for confidentiality of the mandatory treatment as it relates to civil proceedings. The bill should be amended to assure that any mandatory mental health treatment is confidential and not discoverable in any civil or criminal proceeding. The need for free exchange in the rare case of the need of mental health evaluation and treatment is paramount in ensuring community trust in health care privacy as well as protecting youth and young people from the lifelong stigma of being diagnosed with a ‘conduct disorder.’”
   
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 580 (Wilk), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. SB 580 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. SB 1024 (Wilk), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was also substantially similar to this bill. SB 1024 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. AB 611 (Nazarian), Chapter 613, Statutes of 2019, prohibits sexual contact, as defined, with any animal and provides for seizure and forfeiture of animals involved in such violations.
      
   4. AB 3040 (Nazarian), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have prohibited sexual contact, as defined, with any animal, and would require a person convicted of a violation of sexual contact with an animal to participate counseling as directed by the court. AB 3040 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Social Compassion in Legislation (Sponsor)

Animal Place

Animals & Society Institute

Clinica Sierra Vista

Compassionate Bay

Do Good International

Faith Action for All

Grassroots Coalition

Humane Decisions

In Defense of Animals

Los Angeles Alliance for Animals

Los Gatos Plant-based Advocates

Our Honor

Outta the Cage

Project Minnie

Start Rescue

Take Me Home

The Animal Rescue Mission

Tippedears

Vegan Flag

139 Private Individuals

Opposition

California Public Defenders Association

Analysis Prepared by:

Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744