Existing law establishes the Elderly Parole Program for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of inmates who are 50 years of age or older and who have served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on their sentence. If an inmate is found suitable for parole under this program, existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to release the individual on parole, as specified.

This bill would raise the minimum age limitation for that program to 60 For an inmate sentenced for certain sexually related crimes, the bill would not consider the inmate suitable for parole under the program unless the person is 65 years of age or older and instead require the inmate to have has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration in order to be eligible for that program. on their current sentence.

Existing law punishes specified crimes, including, among others, some forms of murder and rape, with imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole. Existing law states that an inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until they have served the greater of either 7 years or the minimum term set in their sentence. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to, in considering a parole for an inmate, consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff, as specified, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of parole.

This bill would require the board to consider in a parole suitability hearing for an inmate imprisoned under a life sentence specified written statements, documents, online materials, and photographs that are relevant to determining parole suitability. photographs.

Existing law punishes specified crimes, including, among others, some forms of murder and rape, with imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole. Existing law states that an inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until they have served the greater of either 7 years or the minimum term set in their sentence. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to, in considering a parole for an inmate, consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff, as specified, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of parole.

This bill would require the board to consider in a parole suitability hearing for an inmate imprisoned under a life sentence specified written statements, documents, online materials, and photographs that are relevant to determining parole suitability.

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 356

Author:(Jones) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill provides that a person sentenced under the one-strike sex offense statute, as a habitual sex offender, for aggravated sexual assault of a child, or for specified sex acts on a child 10 years of age or younger are ineligible for elderly parole until age 65 and after serving a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing General Fund costs to CDCR for extended incarceration of the affected population. Under existing law, a person sentenced for one of the specified sex offenses is eligible for elderly parole consideration at age 50 after 20 years served; under the bill, eligibility is delayed to age 65 after 25 years served. CDCR confirms the bill would result in longer incarceration periods for certain individuals currently in custody and a corresponding increase in the state prison population. At CDCR’s current average per capita incarceration cost (approximately $133,000 annually), each additional year of incarceration for an affected individual represents a cost of that magnitude; aggregate cost will depend on the size of the affected population and the extent to which current-law elderly parole grants would otherwise have resulted in release. CDCR notes that some affected individuals may remain eligible for earlier parole consideration through youth offender parole or their minimum eligible parole date, which partially offsets the delayed-eligibility effect.
2. Significant ongoing California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) costs (General Fund) of an unknown amount for geriatric medical care for the affected population. Incarcerated individuals over age 55 incur substantially higher healthcare costs than the general CDCR population due to age-related chronic conditions, long-term care needs, and end-of-life care.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, the bill “reinforces public safety while preserving parole opportunities for incarcerated individuals who have reached a genuinely advanced age after serving substantial prison terms,” and “does not eliminate parole opportunities, alter the Board of Parole Hearings’ authority, or affect victim participation rights.”
2. Background. The Elderly Parole Program was established in response to a 2014 order of the three-judge federal court overseeing California’s prison overcrowding litigation (Coleman v. Brown / Plata v. Brown). The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) began conducting elderly parole hearings on October 1, 2014. AB 1448 (Weber), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2017 codified the program in statute. AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020 lowered the minimum age from 60 to 50 and reduced the time-served requirement from 25 years to 20 years.

Eligibility for elderly parole is not equivalent to release. BPH holds a suitability hearing and may grant parole only after considering the full range of suitability factors under title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, including the gravity of the offense, institutional behavior, remorse, rehabilitation, and risk of future violence. For individuals convicted of sex offenses, BPH is also required under Penal Code section 3053.9 to obtain a comprehensive risk assessment conducted by a licensed psychologist using actuarial instruments. Between 2022 and 2024, approximately 16% of elderly parole hearings resulted in a grant of parole, with grant rates declining substantially for individuals with sex offense convictions. Individuals excluded from the statutory Elderly Parole Program may remain eligible for elderly parole consideration under the court-ordered program, which operates under the three-judge court’s 2014 order and uses a separate age-60 / 25-year-served threshold.

1. Support and Opposition. The bill is supported by law enforcement associations and district attorneys, who argue that individuals serving lengthy life sentences for the most serious sex offenses against children can become eligible for parole at age 50 after serving a small fraction of their sentences, and that the bill’s adjusted thresholds better reflect the severity of these crimes and the expectations of victims. The bill is opposed by a coalition of civil rights, criminal justice reform, and defense organizations, who argue that recidivism rates for persons released through the Elderly Parole Program are exceptionally low, that the existing parole suitability process already rigorously screens candidates, that restricting elderly parole risks the state’s compliance with the federal overcrowding order, and that delaying parole eligibility concentrates incarceration and healthcare spending at the most expensive end of the age distribution.
2. Related Legislation. AB 2727 (Nguyen), of this legislative session, contains an identical elderly parole provision and additionally expands the authority and timing of referrals for sexually violent predator evaluation. The bill is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2570 (Lackey), of this legislative session, increases the elderly parole eligibility age from 50 to 65. The hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on AB 2570 was canceled at the request of the author.

AB 47 (Nguyen), of this legislative session, provides that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense or as a habitual sex offender is ineligible for elderly parole until age 60 after a minimum of 25 years served. AB 47 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

SB 1278 (Niello), of this legislative session, excludes persons sentenced for specified sex offenses from the Elderly Parole Program. SB 1278 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

SB 286 (Jones), of this legislative session, excludes from elderly parole eligibility individuals convicted of murder or specified felony sex offenses. SB 286 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

Chief Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 356

Author:(Jones) – As Amended Ver:March 5, 2026

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY: Provides that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense, as a habitual sex offender, for aggravated sexual assault of a child, or for specified sex acts on a child 10 years of age or younger, is ineligible for elderly parole until the person is 65 years old or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Elderly Parole Program, to be administered by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), for purposes of reviewing the parole suitability of any inmate who is 50 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on the inmate’s current sentence, serving either a determinate or indeterminate sentence. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (a).)
   
2. Requires BPH, when considering the release of an inmate, as specified, to give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the elderly inmate’s risk for future violence. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (c).)
   
3. Requires BPH, when scheduling a parole consideration hearing date or when considering a request for an advance hearing, as specified, to consider whether the inmate meets or will meet the age and time-served criteria. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (d).)
   
4. States that an individual who is subject to this section shall meet with BPH pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 3041. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (e).)
   
5. Requires BPH, if an inmate is found suitable for parole under the Elderly Parole Program, to release the individual on parole, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (e).)
   
6. Requires BPH, if parole is not granted, to set the time for a subsequent elderly parole hearing, as specified, and provides that no subsequent elderly parole hearing shall be necessary if the offender is released pursuant to other statutory provisions prior to the date of the subsequent hearing. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (f).)
   
7. Provides the following exceptions to the Elderly Parole Program:
   
   1. Persons who had a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony;
      
   2. Persons who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole or death; or,
      
   3. Persons convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer, as defined, who was killed while engaged in the performance of their duties, and the individual knew, or reasonably should have known, that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of their duties, or the victim was a peace officer or a former peace officer and was intentionally killed in retaliation for the performance of their official duties. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (g) & (h).)
      
8. Provides that the provisions of the Elderly Parole Program do not alter the rights of victims at parole hearings. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (i).)
   
9. Provides that one year before the inmate’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners shall again meet with the inmate and shall normally grant parole, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)
10. Provides that, upon a grant of parole, the inmate shall be released subject to all applicable review periods, except an inmate shall not be released before reaching his or her MEPD, as specified, unless the inmate is eligible for earlier release under their youth offender parole eligibility date or elderly parole eligibility date. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)
11. Requires BPH to grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Sponsors: Author-sponsored
   
2. Author's Statement: According to the author, “California's Elderly Parole Program was created to provide parole consideration for incarcerated individuals who have reached an advanced age after serving lengthy prison terms. However, in 2020, the Legislature lowered eligibility from age 60 after 25 years of incarceration to age 50 after 20 years served, dramatically expanding access to the program. Most Californians would not consider a 50-year-old to be elderly. Yet under current law, individuals convicted of serious crimes may become eligible for elderly parole at an age when many Californians are still raising families, building careers, and actively participating in their communities.

“SB 356 restores the program's original eligibility standards of age 60 and 25 years served. The bill does not eliminate parole opportunities, alter the Board of Parole Hearings' authority, or affect victim participation rights. Restoring the original eligibility standards reinforces public safety while preserving parole opportunities for incarcerated individuals who have reached an advanced age. The bill returns the Elderly Parole Program to its original purpose, ensuring that this specialized parole pathway remains available to individuals who have attained a genuinely advanced age after serving substantial prison terms.”

1. Elderly Parole Program: As the result of severe prison overcrowding, the Three-Judge Court ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to implement several population reduction measures, including to “[f]inalize and implement a new parole process whereby inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served a minimum of twenty-five years of their sentence will be referred to the Board of Parole Hearings to determine suitability for parole.” (February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown) In response to the order, BPH created the Elderly Parole Program and began holding elderly parole hearings on October 1, 2014. Inmates with determinate terms as well as those sentenced to life with the possibility of parole are eligible for the program.^[1] Inmates who are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, or who are sentenced to death are not eligible for the program.^[2]
   
   AB 1448 (Weber), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2017, codified the Elderly Parole Program. However, AB 1448 narrowed the eligibility criteria by excluding individuals who were sentenced pursuant to “Three Strikes” or who were convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer from the Elderly Parole Program. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subds. (g) & (h).) AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020, expanded the eligibility criteria for elderly parole. Specifically, AB 3234 lowered the minimum age at which an incarcerated individual is eligible for elderly parole from 60 to 50 and the amount of time that must be served from 25 years to 20 years. Incarcerated individuals who meet the eligibility criteria of the court-ordered Elderly Parole Program but who are excluded from the statutory Elderly Parole Program are eligible for elderly parole consideration under the court-ordered program.^[3]
   
2. General Overview of the Parole Process: This bill would delay the time persons convicted of specified sex crimes are eligible for elderly parole. Notably, a person eligible for elderly parole does not mean they are automatically suitable for parole, but rather that they are eligible for a hearing to determine their suitability.
   
   BPH is required to hold a hearing on a person’s suitability for parole one year before the person’s MEPD to determine if the person should be released from prison. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).) Existing law requires BPH to grant parole unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)
   
   The Elderly Parole Program requires BPH “to give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the elderly inmate’s risk for future violence, when considering the release of an inmate.” (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (c).) BPH can consider all relevant, reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) Factors showing unsuitability include, among others, whether the person abused their victim during the offense or the offense was exceptionally cruel or callous; and, whether the person has an unstable social history, committed a sadistic sexual offense, demonstrates a lack of remorse, or has engaged in serious misconduct while incarcerated. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (c).) Circumstances tending to show suitability include, among others, a stable social history, signs of remorse, age, understanding and future plans, and positive institutional behavior. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (d).) Regardless of the length of time served, a person must be found unsuitable for and denied parole if BPH determines that the person poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (a).)
   
   Existing law also requires a person convicted of a sexually violent offense and up for parole to undergo a comprehensive risk assessment for sexual offenders. (Pen. Code, § 3053.9.) The risk assessment is conducted by licensed psychologist employed by BPH who consider factors impacting the person’s risk of violence. (Ibid.)
   
   If found suitable for parole, a person released from custody is subject to supervision. Persons who are eligible for release under this bill are subject to parole supervision for at least 10 years, and could even receive lifetime parole under certain circumstances. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000, subd. (b)(3); 3001.01, subd. (d)(1); and 3000.1, subd. (a)(2).) Existing law requires BPH, within 10 days following any decision granting parole, to send the incarcerated person a written statement setting forth the reason or reasons for granting parole, the conditions the person must meet in order to be released, and the consequences of failure to meet those conditions. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (b)(1).) Existing law provides that the parole agency can impose additional and appropriate conditions of supervision if the person violated a parole condition. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (d).) Failure to comply with the conditions of parole could result in parole revocation and return to custody. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (f)(1).)
   
3. Recidivism: Available data demonstrates that recidivism rates for persons granted parole through the Elderly Parole Program are low. The most recent CDCR recidivism report available on the department’s website reported that four of the 221 individuals (1.8%) released through the program were reconvicted for any criminal offense in the three years following release.^[4] Just one of those individuals was convicted of a felony against a person, while the other three individuals were convicted of misdemeanors.^[5] By comparison, the overall recidivism rate for those released from CDCR during that period is 39.1 percent.^[6]
   
   Prior reports from 2022-2024 show recidivism rates for persons released under the Elderly Parole Program of 1.0 percent, 0.7 percent, and 2.4 percent, respectively.^[7]
   
4. Argument in Support: According to the District Attorney for Ventura County, “The Elderly Parole Program exists to assess whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition have reduced an inmate's risk for future violence, such that they may safely receive early release. However, offenders serving life sentences for the most violent and depraved crimes can receive "elderly" parole at only age 50, rather than when the offender is genuinely too old to be a continuing danger in the community.
   
   “SB 356 recalibrates this early release program, setting minimum eligibility at age 60, with at least 25 years served, to preserve the program's framework while ensuring it reflects genuine aging and substantial time served. The gravity of eligible offenses cannot be overstated, including murder, serial rape, kidnapping, and serial child molestation. Your bill's adjusted thresholds better reflect the severity of these crimes and the expectations of victims and the public regarding the meaning of life sentences.
   
   “In Ventura County, many of the inmates qualifying for elderly parole are serial child molesters serving many-decades-long life sentences that reflect the lifelong harm they caused their victims. These inmates will be eligible for parole after serving only a small fraction of their sentences simply because they reach age 50 and have served 20 years. This is a gross injustice to their child victims and a threat to children in our community.
   
   “Consider the example of Francisco Guzman, a 53-year-old inmate from Ventura County who repeatedly molested two young girls ages six and seven for nearly a year. Sentenced to 282-years-to-life, Guzman will be eligible for parole before age sixty after serving only 20 years, less than 10 percent of his "life" sentence. Consider also Brian Humason, age 51, sentenced to 72-years-to-life in Ventura County for forcibly molesting children ages seven and nine. Humason has already had one parole hearing and will have another at only age 54. These two offenders demonstrate the need to reform this misnamed program, which grants leniency to child molesters.
   
   “Although it is appropriate to evaluate whether an offender presents an ongoing danger, it is also appropriate to impose just punishment for the worst sexual offenders and to consider the lifetime suffering of victims. The measure approach of SB 356 respects victims’ rights, preserves community safety, and maintains greater accountability for the most serious crimes while still allowing case-by-case assessment of diminished risk due to genuinely advanced age.”
   
5. Argument in Opposition: According to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, “Elderly Parole Was Created in Recognition of Exceptionally Low Recidivism Rates Among Elderly People and to Address Unconstitutional Overcrowding in State Prisons
   
   “Brown v. Plata (2011) consolidated Plata v. Schwarzenegger and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, resulting in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that California’s prison overcrowding violated the Eighth Amendment. The Court affirmed a three-judge panel's order requiring California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity to improve dire medical and mental health care.
   
   “In 2014, the court in the class action lawsuits mandated that the state create a new geriatric parole consideration process for people 60 or older who have served 25 years, recognizing that elderly people are the safest to release while posing the highest financial burden given their medical needs. The Legislature agreed with this assessment and codified the program in 2018, and later modified the criteria in 2021 so that people aged 50 or older who have served at least 20 years of incarceration are eligible (while keeping in place exclusions for those sentenced to LWOP, death, under the Three Strikes Law, and for first-degree murder of a peace officer). The 2018 version of elderly parole was too narrow to achieve its constitutional purpose so California expanded eligibility to make the remedy actually effective.
   
   “Threatens to Bring the State Out of Compliance with Federal Overcrowding Court Orders
   
   “This bill moves California in the wrong direction at a time when the state remains obligated to maintain compliance with the federal overcrowding mandate established in Brown v. Plata. This bill restricts access to elderly parole, one of the system’s most critical, low risk release upward and exposing the state to renewed constitutional violations.
   
   “SB 356 is Unnecessary and Will Not Improve Public Safety
   
   “The Parole Suitability Process Already Rigorously Screens Candidates. California's Elderly Parole Program is a fiscally responsible, evidence-based policy that allows the parole board to consider whether someone is suitable for release on parole. Elder parole eligibility triggers a hearing, not an automatic release. Multiple steps of review stand between eligibility and release, and each parole hearing is a multi-layered, intensive process. If the parole board finds that an individual still poses a risk to public safety despite their age and length of incarceration, that person will not be released from prison. This process is so rigorous that in 2024 less than 17% of scheduled elderly parole hearings actually resulted in a grant.
   
   “Additionally, this bill also undermines rehabilitation as the central question of parole hearings by extending punishment regardless of transformation. Public safety is best served by a parole system that is individualized, evidence-based, and grounded in a person’s current risk, not by exclusions that prolong incarceration irrespective of rehabilitation.
   
   “Recidivism Rates for Elderly People Released Through the Parole Process Are Exceptionally Low. People released through California’s parole hearing process after serving indeterminate sentences consistently have among the lowest recidivism rates not only in our state prison system, but in the nation – approximately 3% overall, including misdemeanor recidivism and just 0.7% for felony crimes against another person. Therefore, the Elderly Parole Program reduces incarceration costs for the state and is backed by decades of research confirming that people aged out of crime, with recidivism rates dropping sharply after age 50.
   
   “SB 356 Will Come at Enormous Fiscal Cost to California Taxpayers
   
   “Expanding the population of elderly individuals held in prison for decades longer than necessary imposes a significant and avoidable burden on taxpayers without improving public safety outcomes. While recidivism risk decreases with age, the cost of incarcerating older individuals rises significantly. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates that it costs two to three times more to incarcerate an elderly person compared to the general population, meaning the annual cost of incarcerating elders is $255,000 to $383,000 per person. This amounts to an enormous financial burden in California. In this fiscal climate, delaying parole consideration for elderly people and accruing unnecessary incarceration costs is unjustifiable.9 Every dollar saved through parole – including elder parole – is a dollar we can put back into the programs that actually make our neighborhoods safer: violence intervention programs, treatment, reentry support, and services for survivors.
   
   “In conclusion, SB 356 ignores well-established desistance research and would result in more elderly individuals serving excessively long sentences despite their readiness for supervised release, leading to wasted resources that could be better utilized for other purposes, including vital social service programs.”
   
6. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2570 (Lackey) would increase the age at which an incarcerated person becomes eligible for the Elderly Parole Program from 50- to 65-years-old. The hearing on AB 2570 was canceled at the request of the author.
      
   2. AB 2727 (Nguyen) would provide that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense, as a habitual sex offender, for aggravated sexual assault of a child, or for specified sex acts on a child 10 years of age or younger, is ineligible for elderly parole until the person is 65 years old or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence. AB 2727 is pending a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   3. SB 1278 (Niello) would exclude persons sentenced for a one-strike sex offense, as a habitual sex offender, or for specified sex offenses classified as a “violent” and/or “serious” felony from the Elderly Parole Program. SB 1278 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
7. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 47 (Nguyen), of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session, would have provided that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense or as a habitual sex offender is ineligible for elderly parole until the person is 60 years old or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence. AB 47 was held in suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. SB 286 (Jones), of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session, would have exclude from Elderly Parole eligibility individuals convicted of murder or specified felony sex offenses, or sentenced as a habitual sex offender or under the One Strike Sex Offense statute. SB 286 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. SB 445 (Jones), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have excluded “One Strike” sex offenses from the Elderly Parole Program. SB 445 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   4. AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020, lowered the minimum age limitation for the Elderly Parole Program to inmates who are 50 years of age and who have served a minimum of 20 years.
      
   5. SB 411 (Jones), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was nearly identical to SB 445 above. SB 411 did not receive a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   6. AB 1448 (Weber), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2017, codified the Elderly Parole Program, to be administered by BPH.
      
   7. SB 224 (Liu), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to AB 1448 above. SB 224 was ordered to the Inactive File on the Senate Floor.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of School Police Chiefs
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
The California Baptist Capitol Ministry
Ventura County District Attorney's Office
2 Private Individuals

Opposition

ACLU California Action
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Fair Chance Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Initiate Justice
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
San Francisco Public Defender
San Quentin Skunkworks
Saving Lives in Custody California
Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact
Uncommon Law
4 Private Individuals

Analysis Prepared by: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/elderly-parole-hearings-overview/> [as of May 29, 2026]. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. BPH, Elderly Parole Fact Sheet (Mar. 2022), p. 1 available at <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2022/03/Elderly-Parole-Fact-Sheet3_18-1.pdf> [as of May 29, 2026]. ↑

4. CDCR, Recidivism Rates for Individuals Released Through Board of Parole Hearings Processes in Fiscal Year 2019-20 (July 2025) p. 6 <Recidivism Rates for Individuals Released Through Board of Parole Hearings Processes in Fiscal Year 2019-20> [as of May 29, 2026]. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. <https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiNmRjOTkwMWEtYmVkMy00MTA1LWIxZDYtYzg4OTIzYjkxNTRlIiwidCI6IjA2NjI0NzdkLWZhMGMtNDU1Ni1hOGY1LWMzYmM2MmFhMGQ5YyJ9> [as of May 29, 2026]. ↑

7. <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/offender-outcomes-characteristics/offender-recidivism/> [as of May 29, 2026]. ↑

Date of Hearing: July 15, 2025

Chief Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 356

Author:(Jones) – As Amended Ver:April 9, 2025

REVISED

SUMMARY: Provides that the submitted statements and recommendations that must be considered in a parole hearing include, but are not limited to, crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and photographs of weapons used in the crime.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that in the case of any incarcerated person sentenced pursuant to any law, except as specified, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) must meet with each incarcerated individual during the sixth year before the individual’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the individual’s activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
   
2. Requires that during the incarcerated individual’s consultation, the BPH provide the person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to his or her suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding his or her work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior. Requires the board, within 30 days following the consultation, to issue its positive and negative findings and recommendations to the person in writing. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
   
3. Requires a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners to meet with the incarcerated person one year before the person’s MEPD and provides that the panel shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)
   
4. Requires the person to be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits a person from being released before reaching his or her MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)
   
5. Provides that the panel or the BPH, sitting en banc, shall grant parole to an incarcerated individual unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)
   
6. Requires the BPH to conduct a parole hearing as a de novo hearing. Provides that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing must be considered but are not deemed to be binding upon subsequent parole hearings for an individual. Specifies that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing are subject to reconsideration based upon changed facts and circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (c).) 
   
7. Requires the BPH, in considering parole for an individual, to consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of parole. Requires BPH to enter on its order granting or denying parole to these individuals, the fact that the statements and recommendations have been considered by it. (Pen. Code, § 3046, subd. (d).)
   
8. Establishes the youth offender parole hearing process for eligible individuals who were convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and after serving a minimum amount of time, as specified. Defines “youth parole eligible date” as the earliest date upon which a youth offender is eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subds. (a) & (b).)
   
9. Requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the youth offender parole process, to give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual in accordance with relevant case law. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)
   
10. Establishes the Elderly Parole Program to be administered by the BPH for purposes of reviewing the parole suitability of any incarcerated person who is 50 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on the individual’s current sentence, serving either a determinate or indeterminate sentence. Defines “elderly parole eligible date” as the date on which an incarcerated individual who qualifies as an elderly offender is eligible for release from prison. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subds. (a) & (b).)
    
11. Requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the Elderly Parole Program, to give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the person’s risk for future violence. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (c).)
    
12. Defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” to mean an unreasonable risk that the individual will commit a new violent felony, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (c).)
    
13. Requires the BPH, within 20 days following any decision denying parole, to send the incarcerated individual a written statement setting forth the reason or reasons for denying parole, and suggest activities in which he or she might participate that will benefit him or her while he or she is incarcerated. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (b)(2).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “In January 2024, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) enacted a policy that prevents the submission of photographs deemed "graphic" for consideration at parole hearings. This change was implemented without public notice, stakeholder input, or transparency, and it denies commissioners access to critical evidence when making parole suitability decisions.
   
   “Photographs of the crime scene and autopsy are essential to understanding the nature of the crime and evaluating an inmate’s credibility and insight. California law, under Title 15 of the Code of Regulations, requires that an inmate’s commitment offense be reviewed when determining parole suitability. The Board has an obligation to consider all relevant and reliable evidence in its decision-making process (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 2281(b)).
   
   “Historically, commissioners have used photographic evidence to assess an inmate’s truthfulness, remorse, and rehabilitation. These images provide visual confirmation of case facts that written reports alone cannot convey. By excluding such evidence, the Board undermines public safety and disregards the voices of crime victims and their families.
   
   “SB 356 ensures that the Board must accept all relevant materials, including photographs, for consideration at parole hearings. This bill restores fairness and transparency in the parole process, ensuring that victims’ families are heard and that commissioners have the necessary tools to make informed decisions.”
   
2. Effect of the Bill: The proponents of this bill assert that this bill was introduced in response to the Board’s policy prohibiting the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing which they state was a departure from the Board’s prior practice. First, the Board no longer prohibits the submission of these photographs. In May, the California Office of Administrative Law determined that the Board’s policy prohibiting such submissions constituted an underground regulation, which means the Board can no longer enforce this policy.^[1] As a result, the Board is now accepting such photographs.
   
   Given that the Board is again accepting crime scene photographs, is this bill even necessary?
   
3. Parole Hearings: A parole hearing is a hearing to determine whether an incarcerated individual is suitable for release to parole supervision. Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by the BPH in order to be released from prison. An incarcerated individual is entitled to legal counsel at their parole hearing, which may be a private attorney or one appointed by the BPH, and a representative from the District Attorney’s office from the prosecuting county may make a presentation regarding the office’s position on the individual’s suitability for parole.
   
   The Penal Code provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) The fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the person currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) In deciding whether to grant parole, the BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2402, subd. (b), 2281, subd. (b).) Factors the BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) The regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)
   
   Although the parole board is required to consider the circumstances of the offense, the California Supreme Court has held that the parole board may not rely solely on the commitment offense when deciding to grant parole unless the circumstances of the offense “continue to be predictive of current dangerousness.” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.) The parole board is prohibited from requiring an admission of guilt to any crime for which an incarcerated person was committed to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) when considering whether to grant an inmate parole. (Pen. Code, § 5011, subd. (b).) However, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of current dangerousness, without in any sense requiring the inmate to admit guilt as a condition of parole….it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility.” (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 216.) Although the term “insight” is not explicitly included in the regulations, the regulations “direct the Board to consider the inmate’s ‘past and present attitude toward the crime’ and ‘the presence of remorse,’ expressly including indications that the inmate ‘understands the nature and magnitude of the offense’… fit[ting] comfortably within the descriptive category of ‘insight.’” (Id. at 218 (citations omitted).)
   
   Additional guidance for making parole suitability determinations is provided in the regulations which list circumstances tending to show suitability and those tending to show unsuitability. The following circumstances tend to show unsuitability for release:

• The person committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. The factors to be considered include:
  • Multiple victims were attacked, injured or killed in the same or separate incidents.
  • The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution-style murder.
  • The victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense.
  • The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering.
  • The motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense.
• The person on previous occasions inflicted or attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the incarcerated person demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early age.
• The person has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others.
• The person has previously sexually assaulted another in a manner calculated to inflict unusual pain or fear upon the victim.
• The person has a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense.
• The person has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (c).)

The following are circumstances tending to show suitability for release:

• The person does not have a record of assaulting others as a juvenile or committing crimes with a potential of personal harm to victims.
• The person has experienced reasonably stable relationships with others.
• The person performed acts which tend to indicate the presence of remorse, such as attempting to repair the damage, seeking help for or relieving suffering of the victim, or indicating that he understands the nature and magnitude of the offense.
• The person committed his or her crime as the result of significant stress in his or her life, especially if the stress has built over a long period of time.
• At the time of the commission of the crime, the person suffered from Battered Woman Syndrome, as defined, and it appears the criminal behavior was the result of that victimization.
• The person lacks any significant history of violent crime.
• The person’s present age reduces the probability of recidivism.
• The person has made realistic plans for release or has developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release.
• Institutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (d).)

The circumstances which tend to show suitability and unsuitability for parole are set forth as general guidelines, and the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subds. (c) & (d).)

1. Submission of Documents Prior to a Parole Hearing: The BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook provides guidance pertaining to documents that may be submitted by a prosecutor’s office prior to a parole suitability hearing. It provides:

Prosecutors have a right to attend a parole hearing, and the Board welcomes prosecutors’ input. To comply with the law and to ensure the input is submitted timely to the hearing panel, the Board proposes these general guidelines. Prosecutors are not required to submit documents to the Board for a parole hearing, but they may do so if they have documents that are reliable and relevant to a parole suitability determination. Most relevant law enforcement and court documents such as arrest reports, minute orders, abstracts of judgment, and probation officer reports are submitted to CDCR when a person is first admitted to state prison so they are already in the person’s central file. Prosecutors are expected to review the incarcerated person’s central file and the Board’s hearing packet to determine if a document they believe is relevant has already been submitted to CDCR. Any additional documents submitted should be brief, clearly written, and relevant to the person’s suitability for parole.^[2]

The handbook specifies that prosecutors submitting documents prior to a parole hearing should not submit documents that are already contained in the incarcerated person’s central file, documents that are lengthy, or documents that were previously submitted by the prosecutor’s office or the courts.^[3]

The BPH’s parole handbook states the following as it relates to its policy on the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing:

The Board is tasked with determining whether the person before them poses a current, unreasonable risk of danger to society. In making this determination, the Board must consider all relevant, reliable evidence and uses the SDMF (Structured Decision-Making Framework), which is consistent with empirical research, governing statutes, regulations, and case law. Determining the manner in which factors relevant to parole suitability are considered lies within the discretion of the Board. Relevant information for a parole hearing is defined as “evidence which proves or disproves an issue or fact in dispute.”

The Board accepts the incarcerated person’s conviction as true and is not re-litigating the commitment offense at a parole hearing. Accordingly, hearing panels do not need to consider every piece of evidence presented at trial, including photographic materials. The Board already receives many documents containing information about the crime, which includes documents from courts, prosecutors, probation officers, the incarcerated person, and victims and their family members. Hearing panels review these documents for the hearing and are familiar with the facts of the commitment offense. If there are disputes regarding the commitment offense that need to be resolved, such as an incarcerated person’s implausible denial of the crime, the hearing panel is usually able to resolve these disputes based on materials already in the record. If the hearing panel determines that photographs or other documents are necessary for them to reach a decision on the incarcerated person’s parole suitability, they can postpone or continue the hearing so the additional information can be gathered.

Photographic materials, such as crime scene or autopsy photos, are often very graphic and may contain images of a deceased victim’s unclothed body. When these items are received, they may be scanned and uploaded to the person’s central file, which is accessible to the incarcerated person and CDCR employees statewide. Crime scene and autopsy photos are also generally duplicative of evidence already contained in the record.

For these reasons, the Board will not accept photographs, including crime scene and autopsy pictures. The Board continues to welcome prosecutors’ submission of written documents in compliance with this section.^[4]

In support of its statement that it has the discretion to weigh relevant factors in making a parole suitability determination, the Board cites a case which provides:

Resolution of any conflicts in the evidence and the weight to be given the evidence are matters within the authority of [the Board or] the Governor. … [T]he precise manner in which the specified factors relevant to parole suitability are considered and balanced lies within the discretion of [the Board or] the Governor … (internal citations omitted.) (In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192, 210.)

As previously noted, the Board is again accepting crime scene and autopsy photographs after the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) determined that its decision to prohibit submission of such documents amounted to an underground regulation. The Board retains discretion consider these items when necessary to make a decision as to an incarcerated person’s suitability for parole. Given that the issue this bill seeks to address was the prohibition on submission of such photographs and not the discretion of the Board to review them in appropriate circumstances, and in light of the Board’s change in policy, this bill appears to be an excessive remedy to a resolved issued.

1. Argument in Support: According to Crime Victims United of California, “In January 2024, BPH implemented a policy that prohibits commissioners from reviewing crime scene, autopsy, and other graphic photographs during parole suitability hearings. This policy change limits the information available to commissioners, undermining their ability to make fully informed decisions about whether an inmate still poses a threat to public safety. Victims and their families are being retraumatized, not only by the parole process but by the exclusion of critical evidence that conveys the true impact of the crime.
   
   “Victims and their families do not choose to be involved in the criminal justice system, yet they are forced to relive their trauma when advocating for justice. SB 356 corrects this unfair practice by requiring the Board to accept and consider all relevant photographs at parole hearings, ensuring that commissioners have access to the full scope of evidence needed to determine whether an inmate is fit for release.
   
   “This bill restores fairness, transparency, and justice to parole hearings and upholds the rights of victims.”
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to Californians for Safety and Justice, “Parole hearings are not the appropriate setting to relitigate the facts of someone’s commitment offense. These determinations take place during trial and sentencing in the presence of a judge. Rather, the central determination in a parole hearing as defined by the California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence, is whether someone poses a current “unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.”1 The court explicitly limited BPH’s ability to deny parole based entirely on “immutable circumstances,” such as the heinous nature of the offense, instead, directing the Board to consider “only the factors relevant to predicting whether the incarcerated person “will be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts.’”2 In accordance with the governing case law, the hearing panel clearly states on the record at the beginning of every hearing, “We are not here to reconsider or retry your original case. We accept as true the findings of the previous court. The purpose of today’s hearing is to find out who you are today and whether you pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society.” By forcing graphic crime scene photos to be considered in a parole hearing, SB 356 jeopardizes the intent and legal framework of a parole hearing.
   
   “Perhaps most importantly, the incorporation of graphic crime scene and autopsy photos into parole hearings jeopardizes dignity for victims, many of whom are no longer alive. Crime scene photos depict survivors, often women and sometimes young children, in deeply vulnerable and traumatizing conditions. Victims are often brutally wounded, unclothed or deceased in these photos. For these reasons among others outlined below, BPH does not accept photographs. The nonconsensual sharing of graphic photos is an inevitable consequence of SB 356, the devastating impacts of which cannot be overstated. This is particularly troubling when considering deceased victims who no longer have a say regarding the use of photos depicting them, including those depicting their death.
   
   “The negative impact on victims, survivors and next of kin, who frequently attend parole board hearings, is not considered in this bill. In 2008, the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (also known as “Marsy’s Law”) amended the California Constitution to provide additional rights to victims, resulting in more than sufficiently guarantees that victims have full participation in parole hearings. Under the law, victims, survivors and next of kin are included in the parole hearing process to ensure that parole hearings are fair and that victims and survivors are acknowledged and treated with understanding, dignity, and respect.4 Parole hearings are often very difficult for victims, survivors and their families and BPH cites respect for victims, survivors and next of kin as a key reason for their policy decision to not accept graphic crime photos.5 The current policy helps to preserve respect and dignity for crime victims, survivors and their loved ones, who deserve not to have sensitive photos viewed and circulated unnecessarily. Parole hearings are already emotionally intense and retraumatizing––SB 356 would make hearings significantly more traumatic for everyone involved as commissioners, administrative staff, and legal teams would all be subjected to graphic depictions of violence. In addition, SB 356 opens the door for prosecutors to submit graphic crime scene photographs even without the consent of survivors and their loved ones. In fact, District Attorneys have already been doing so, consistent with their practice of providing written and oral comments at parole hearings without coordinating with registered victims/survivors and their wishes, sometimes even opposing parole when the victim/survivor supports parole. Victims/survivors deserve dignity and access to healing support, not subjugation to a further traumatizing hearing culture.
   
   “SB 356 is unnecessary because parole commissioners already have access to ample relevant information regarding the commitment offense. Prior to a hearing, the panel receives many documents with detailed information about the commitment offense including probation officer reports, sentencing transcripts, autopsy reports, written statements from prosecutors, as well as statements submitted by victims and their family members. As the Board has stated in their California Parole Hearing Process Handbook, “crime scene and autopsy photographs are generally duplicative of evidence already contained in the record”6 and are not necessary for commissioners to understand the commitment offense. In the rare occasion that a crime scene or autopsy photograph is helpful or useful in resolving a disputed issue to determine a person’s current risk of danger, the Board has the discretion to work with law enforcement to obtain the photographs for consideration in a parole hearing.”
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 47 (Nguyen) would have provided that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense or as a habitual sex offender is ineligible for elderly parole until the person is 60 years old or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence. AB 47 was held in suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. SB 286 (Jones) was substantially similar to AB 47 above. SB 286 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. SB 537 (Archuleta), of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session, would have excluded a person sentenced to first- or second-degree murder with a maximum term of life imprisonment from the required 3-year parole period applicable to any person released from state prison on or after July 1, 2020. SB 537 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   4. SB 445 (Jones), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have excluded “One Strike” sex offenses from the Elderly Parole Program. SB 445 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   5. AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020, lowered the minimum age limitation for the Elderly Parole Program to inmates who are 50 years of age and who have served a minimum of 20 years.
      
   6. SB 411 (Jones), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was nearly identical to SB 445 above. SB 411 did not receive a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   7. AB 1448 (Weber), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2017, codified the Elderly Parole Program, to be administered by the Board of Parole Hearings.
      
   8. SB 224 (Liu), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to AB 1448 above. SB 224 was ordered to the Inactive File on the Senate Floor.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association
California Protective Parents Association
California Sexual Assault Investigators Association
California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police
Crime Victims Alliance
Crime Victims United of California
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Riverside County District Attorney
San Diego County District Attorney's Office

Oppose

ACLU California Action
All of US or None
Asian Law Alliance
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Coalition for Justice and Accountability
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Courage California
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Peace and Justice Law Center
Rubicon Programs
San Francisco Public Defender
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
The Change Parallel Project
The Mend Collaborative
Uncommon Law
University of San Francisco School of Law, Racial Justice Clinic

Analysis Prepared by: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. https://danewscenter.com’news/da-succeeds-in-reversing-parole-board-policy-on-banning-crime-scene-and-autopsy-photos ↑

2. BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 27 available at <https://www.crcd.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2024/03/pv-CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24.pdf>. ↑

3. Id. at p. 27. ↑

4. Id. at pg. 28. ↑

Date of Hearing: July 15, 2025

Chief Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 356

Author:(Jones) – As Amended Ver:April 9, 2025

SUMMARY: Provides that the submitted statements and recommendations that must be considered in a parole hearing include, but are not limited to, written statements, photographs, crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, photographs of weapons used in the crime, photographs of the inmate, photographs of the victim, police reports, investigative reports, autopsy reports, victim and witness statements, court transcripts, court documents, printed media articles, social media postings, online petitions, business records, and any other documents or photographs relevant to determining parole suitability.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that in the case of any incarcerated person sentenced pursuant to any law, except as specified, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) must meet with each incarcerated individual during the sixth year before the individual’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the individual’s activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
   
2. Requires that during the incarcerated individual’s consultation, the BPH provide the person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to his or her suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding his or her work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior. Requires the board, within 30 days following the consultation, to issue its positive and negative findings and recommendations to the person in writing. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
   
3. Requires a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners to meet with the incarcerated person one year before the person’s MEPD and provides that the panel shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)
   
4. Requires the person to be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits a person from being released before reaching his or her MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)
   
5. Provides that the panel or the BPH, sitting en banc, shall grant parole to an incarcerated individual unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)
   
6. Requires the BPH to conduct a parole hearing as a de novo hearing. Provides that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing must be considered but are not deemed to be binding upon subsequent parole hearings for an individual. Specifies that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing are subject to reconsideration based upon changed facts and circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (c).) 
   
7. Requires the BPH, in considering parole for an individual, to consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of parole. Requires BPH to enter on its order granting or denying parole to these individuals, the fact that the statements and recommendations have been considered by it. (Pen. Code, § 3046, subd. (d).)
   
8. Establishes the youth offender parole hearing process for eligible individuals who were convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and after serving a minimum amount of time, as specified. Defines “youth parole eligible date” as the earliest date upon which a youth offender is eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subds. (a) & (b).)
   
9. Requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the youth offender parole process, to give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual in accordance with relevant case law. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)
   
10. Establishes the Elderly Parole Program to be administered by the BPH for purposes of reviewing the parole suitability of any incarcerated person who is 50 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on the individual’s current sentence, serving either a determinate or indeterminate sentence. Defines “elderly parole eligible date” as the date on which an incarcerated individual who qualifies as an elderly offender is eligible for release from prison. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subds. (a) & (b).)
    
11. Requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the Elderly Parole Program, to give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the person’s risk for future violence. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (c).)
    
12. Defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” to mean an unreasonable risk that the individual will commit a new violent felony, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (c).)
    
13. Requires the BPH, within 20 days following any decision denying parole, to send the incarcerated individual a written statement setting forth the reason or reasons for denying parole, and suggest activities in which he or she might participate that will benefit him or her while he or she is incarcerated. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (b)(2).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “In January 2024, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) enacted a policy that prevents the submission of photographs deemed "graphic" for consideration at parole hearings. This change was implemented without public notice, stakeholder input, or transparency, and it denies commissioners access to critical evidence when making parole suitability decisions.
   
   “Photographs of the crime scene and autopsy are essential to understanding the nature of the crime and evaluating an inmate’s credibility and insight. California law, under Title 15 of the Code of Regulations, requires that an inmate’s commitment offense be reviewed when determining parole suitability. The Board has an obligation to consider all relevant and reliable evidence in its decision-making process (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 2281(b)).
   
   “Historically, commissioners have used photographic evidence to assess an inmate’s truthfulness, remorse, and rehabilitation. These images provide visual confirmation of case facts that written reports alone cannot convey. By excluding such evidence, the Board undermines public safety and disregards the voices of crime victims and their families.
   
   “SB 356 ensures that the Board must accept all relevant materials, including photographs, for consideration at parole hearings. This bill restores fairness and transparency in the parole process, ensuring that victims’ families are heard and that commissioners have the necessary tools to make informed decisions.”
   
2. Effect of the Bill: The proponents of this bill assert that this bill was introduced in response to the Board’s policy prohibiting the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing which they state was a departure from the Board’s prior practice. First, the Board no longer prohibits the submission of these photographs. In May, the California Office of Administrative Law determined that the Board’s policy prohibiting such submissions constituted an underground regulation, which means the Board can no longer enforce this policy.^[1] As a result, the Board is now accepting such photographs.
   
   Second, the scope of this bill goes beyond the submission of photographs. This bill amends Penal Code section 3046 which currently requires the BPH to consider all statements and recommendations which have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, sheriff, and other individuals interested in the granting or denying of parole, when considering whether to grant or deny parole for an individual. This bill specifies that the submitted statements and recommendations that must be considered in a parole hearing include, but are not limited to, “written statements, photographs, crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, photographs of weapons used in the crime, photographs of the incarcerated person, photographs of the victim, police reports, investigative reports, autopsy reports, victim and witness statements, court transcripts, court documents, printed media articles, social media postings, online petitions, business records, and any other documents or photographs relevant to determining parole suitability.”
   
   If the impetus for the bill’s introduction was the Board’s adoption of a policy related to the submission of crime scene and autopsy photographs, should the bill include any other materials—in particular, the printed media articles, social media postings, online petitions, and business records? And, given that the Board is again accepting crime scene photographs, is this bill even necessary?
   
3. Parole Hearings: A parole hearing is a hearing to determine whether an incarcerated individual is suitable for release to parole supervision. Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by the BPH in order to be released from prison. An incarcerated individual is entitled to legal counsel at their parole hearing, which may be a private attorney or one appointed by the BPH, and a representative from the District Attorney’s office from the prosecuting county may make a presentation regarding the office’s position on the individual’s suitability for parole.
   
   The Penal Code provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) The fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the person currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) In deciding whether to grant parole, the BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2402, subd. (b), 2281, subd. (b).) Factors the BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) The regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)
   
   Although the parole board is required to consider the circumstances of the offense, the California Supreme Court has held that the parole board may not rely solely on the commitment offense when deciding to grant parole unless the circumstances of the offense “continue to be predictive of current dangerousness.” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.) The parole board is prohibited from requiring an admission of guilt to any crime for which an incarcerated person was committed to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) when considering whether to grant an inmate parole. (Pen. Code, § 5011, subd. (b).) However, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of current dangerousness, without in any sense requiring the inmate to admit guilt as a condition of parole….it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility.” (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 216.) Although the term “insight” is not explicitly included in the regulations, the regulations “direct the Board to consider the inmate’s ‘past and present attitude toward the crime’ and ‘the presence of remorse,’ expressly including indications that the inmate ‘understands the nature and magnitude of the offense’… fit[ting] comfortably within the descriptive category of ‘insight.’” (Id. at 218 (citations omitted).)
   
   Additional guidance for making parole suitability determinations is provided in the regulations which list circumstances tending to show suitability and those tending to show unsuitability. The following circumstances tend to show unsuitability for release:

• The person committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. The factors to be considered include:
  • Multiple victims were attacked, injured or killed in the same or separate incidents.
  • The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution-style murder.
  • The victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense.
  • The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering.
  • The motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense.
• The person on previous occasions inflicted or attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the incarcerated person demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early age.
• The person has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others.
• The person has previously sexually assaulted another in a manner calculated to inflict unusual pain or fear upon the victim.
• The person has a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense.
• The person has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (c).)

The following are circumstances tending to show suitability for release:

• The person does not have a record of assaulting others as a juvenile or committing crimes with a potential of personal harm to victims.
• The person has experienced reasonably stable relationships with others.
• The person performed acts which tend to indicate the presence of remorse, such as attempting to repair the damage, seeking help for or relieving suffering of the victim, or indicating that he understands the nature and magnitude of the offense.
• The person committed his or her crime as the result of significant stress in his or her life, especially if the stress has built over a long period of time.
• At the time of the commission of the crime, the person suffered from Battered Woman Syndrome, as defined, and it appears the criminal behavior was the result of that victimization.
• The person lacks any significant history of violent crime.
• The person’s present age reduces the probability of recidivism.
• The person has made realistic plans for release or has developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release.
• Institutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (d).)

The circumstances which tend to show suitability and unsuitability for parole are set forth as general guidelines, and the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subds. (c) & (d).)

1. Submission of Documents Prior to a Parole Hearing: The BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook provides guidance pertaining to documents that may be submitted by a prosecutor’s office prior to a parole suitability hearing. It provides:

Prosecutors have a right to attend a parole hearing, and the Board welcomes prosecutors’ input. To comply with the law and to ensure the input is submitted timely to the hearing panel, the Board proposes these general guidelines. Prosecutors are not required to submit documents to the Board for a parole hearing, but they may do so if they have documents that are reliable and relevant to a parole suitability determination. Most relevant law enforcement and court documents such as arrest reports, minute orders, abstracts of judgment, and probation officer reports are submitted to CDCR when a person is first admitted to state prison so they are already in the person’s central file. Prosecutors are expected to review the incarcerated person’s central file and the Board’s hearing packet to determine if a document they believe is relevant has already been submitted to CDCR. Any additional documents submitted should be brief, clearly written, and relevant to the person’s suitability for parole.^[2]

The handbook specifies that prosecutors submitting documents prior to a parole hearing should not submit documents that are already contained in the incarcerated person’s central file, documents that are lengthy, or documents that were previously submitted by the prosecutor’s office or the courts.^[3]

The BPH’s parole handbook states the following as it relates to its policy on the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing:

The Board is tasked with determining whether the person before them poses a current, unreasonable risk of danger to society. In making this determination, the Board must consider all relevant, reliable evidence and uses the SDMF (Structured Decision-Making Framework), which is consistent with empirical research, governing statutes, regulations, and case law. Determining the manner in which factors relevant to parole suitability are considered lies within the discretion of the Board. Relevant information for a parole hearing is defined as “evidence which proves or disproves an issue or fact in dispute.”

The Board accepts the incarcerated person’s conviction as true and is not re-litigating the commitment offense at a parole hearing. Accordingly, hearing panels do not need to consider every piece of evidence presented at trial, including photographic materials. The Board already receives many documents containing information about the crime, which includes documents from courts, prosecutors, probation officers, the incarcerated person, and victims and their family members. Hearing panels review these documents for the hearing and are familiar with the facts of the commitment offense. If there are disputes regarding the commitment offense that need to be resolved, such as an incarcerated person’s implausible denial of the crime, the hearing panel is usually able to resolve these disputes based on materials already in the record. If the hearing panel determines that photographs or other documents are necessary for them to reach a decision on the incarcerated person’s parole suitability, they can postpone or continue the hearing so the additional information can be gathered.

Photographic materials, such as crime scene or autopsy photos, are often very graphic and may contain images of a deceased victim’s unclothed body. When these items are received, they may be scanned and uploaded to the person’s central file, which is accessible to the incarcerated person and CDCR employees statewide. Crime scene and autopsy photos are also generally duplicative of evidence already contained in the record.

For these reasons, the Board will not accept photographs, including crime scene and autopsy pictures. The Board continues to welcome prosecutors’ submission of written documents in compliance with this section.^[4]

In support of its statement that it has the discretion to weigh relevant factors in making a parole suitability determination, the Board cites a case which provides:

Resolution of any conflicts in the evidence and the weight to be given the evidence are matters within the authority of [the Board or] the Governor. … [T]he precise manner in which the specified factors relevant to parole suitability are considered and balanced lies within the discretion of [the Board or] the Governor … (internal citations omitted.) (In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192, 210.)

As previously noted, the Board is again accepting crime scene and autopsy photographs after the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) determined that its decision to prohibit submission of such documents amounted to an underground regulation. The Board retains discretion consider these items when necessary to make a decision as to an incarcerated person’s suitability for parole. Given that the issue this bill seeks to address was the prohibition on submission of such photographs and not the discretion of the Board to review them in appropriate circumstances, and in light of the Board’s change in policy, this bill appears to be an excessive remedy to a resolved issued.

1. Argument in Support: According to Crime Victims United of California, “In January 2024, BPH implemented a policy that prohibits commissioners from reviewing crime scene, autopsy, and other graphic photographs during parole suitability hearings. This policy change limits the information available to commissioners, undermining their ability to make fully informed decisions about whether an inmate still poses a threat to public safety. Victims and their families are being retraumatized, not only by the parole process but by the exclusion of critical evidence that conveys the true impact of the crime.
   
   “Victims and their families do not choose to be involved in the criminal justice system, yet they are forced to relive their trauma when advocating for justice. SB 356 corrects this unfair practice by requiring the Board to accept and consider all relevant photographs at parole hearings, ensuring that commissioners have access to the full scope of evidence needed to determine whether an inmate is fit for release.
   
   “This bill restores fairness, transparency, and justice to parole hearings and upholds the rights of victims.”
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to Californians for Safety and Justice, “Parole hearings are not the appropriate setting to relitigate the facts of someone’s commitment offense. These determinations take place during trial and sentencing in the presence of a judge. Rather, the central determination in a parole hearing as defined by the California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence, is whether someone poses a current “unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.”1 The court explicitly limited BPH’s ability to deny parole based entirely on “immutable circumstances,” such as the heinous nature of the offense, instead, directing the Board to consider “only the factors relevant to predicting whether the incarcerated person “will be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts.’”2 In accordance with the governing case law, the hearing panel clearly states on the record at the beginning of every hearing, “We are not here to reconsider or retry your original case. We accept as true the findings of the previous court. The purpose of today’s hearing is to find out who you are today and whether you pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society.” By forcing graphic crime scene photos to be considered in a parole hearing, SB 356 jeopardizes the intent and legal framework of a parole hearing.
   
   “Perhaps most importantly, the incorporation of graphic crime scene and autopsy photos into parole hearings jeopardizes dignity for victims, many of whom are no longer alive. Crime scene photos depict survivors, often women and sometimes young children, in deeply vulnerable and traumatizing conditions. Victims are often brutally wounded, unclothed or deceased in these photos. For these reasons among others outlined below, BPH does not accept photographs. The nonconsensual sharing of graphic photos is an inevitable consequence of SB 356, the devastating impacts of which cannot be overstated. This is particularly troubling when considering deceased victims who no longer have a say regarding the use of photos depicting them, including those depicting their death.
   
   “The negative impact on victims, survivors and next of kin, who frequently attend parole board hearings, is not considered in this bill. In 2008, the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (also known as “Marsy’s Law”) amended the California Constitution to provide additional rights to victims, resulting in more than sufficiently guarantees that victims have full participation in parole hearings. Under the law, victims, survivors and next of kin are included in the parole hearing process to ensure that parole hearings are fair and that victims and survivors are acknowledged and treated with understanding, dignity, and respect.4 Parole hearings are often very difficult for victims, survivors and their families and BPH cites respect for victims, survivors and next of kin as a key reason for their policy decision to not accept graphic crime photos.5 The current policy helps to preserve respect and dignity for crime victims, survivors and their loved ones, who deserve not to have sensitive photos viewed and circulated unnecessarily. Parole hearings are already emotionally intense and retraumatizing––SB 356 would make hearings significantly more traumatic for everyone involved as commissioners, administrative staff, and legal teams would all be subjected to graphic depictions of violence. In addition, SB 356 opens the door for prosecutors to submit graphic crime scene photographs even without the consent of survivors and their loved ones. In fact, District Attorneys have already been doing so, consistent with their practice of providing written and oral comments at parole hearings without coordinating with registered victims/survivors and their wishes, sometimes even opposing parole when the victim/survivor supports parole. Victims/survivors deserve dignity and access to healing support, not subjugation to a further traumatizing hearing culture.
   
   “SB 356 is unnecessary because parole commissioners already have access to ample relevant information regarding the commitment offense. Prior to a hearing, the panel receives many documents with detailed information about the commitment offense including probation officer reports, sentencing transcripts, autopsy reports, written statements from prosecutors, as well as statements submitted by victims and their family members. As the Board has stated in their California Parole Hearing Process Handbook, “crime scene and autopsy photographs are generally duplicative of evidence already contained in the record”6 and are not necessary for commissioners to understand the commitment offense. In the rare occasion that a crime scene or autopsy photograph is helpful or useful in resolving a disputed issue to determine a person’s current risk of danger, the Board has the discretion to work with law enforcement to obtain the photographs for consideration in a parole hearing.”
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 47 (Nguyen) would have provided that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense or as a habitual sex offender is ineligible for elderly parole until the person is 60 years old or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence. AB 47 was held in suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. SB 286 (Jones) was substantially similar to AB 47 above. SB 286 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. SB 537 (Archuleta), of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session, would have excluded a person sentenced to first- or second-degree murder with a maximum term of life imprisonment from the required 3-year parole period applicable to any person released from state prison on or after July 1, 2020. SB 537 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   4. SB 445 (Jones), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have excluded “One Strike” sex offenses from the Elderly Parole Program. SB 445 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   5. AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020, lowered the minimum age limitation for the Elderly Parole Program to inmates who are 50 years of age and who have served a minimum of 20 years.
      
   6. SB 411 (Jones), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was nearly identical to SB 445 above. SB 411 did not receive a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   7. AB 1448 (Weber), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2017, codified the Elderly Parole Program, to be administered by the Board of Parole Hearings.
      
   8. SB 224 (Liu), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to AB 1448 above. SB 224 was ordered to the Inactive File on the Senate Floor.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association
California Protective Parents Association
California Sexual Assault Investigators Association
California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police
Crime Victims Alliance
Crime Victims United of California
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Riverside County District Attorney
San Diego County District Attorney's Office

Oppose

ACLU California Action
All of US or None
Asian Law Alliance
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Coalition for Justice and Accountability
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Courage California
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Peace and Justice Law Center
Rubicon Programs
San Francisco Public Defender
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
The Change Parallel Project
The Mend Collaborative
Uncommon Law
University of San Francisco School of Law, Racial Justice Clinic

Analysis Prepared by: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. https://danewscenter.com’news/da-succeeds-in-reversing-parole-board-policy-on-banning-crime-scene-and-autopsy-photos ↑

2. BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 27 available at <https://www.crcd.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2024/03/pv-CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24.pdf>. ↑

3. Id. at p. 27. ↑

4. Id. at pg. 28. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 356

Author: Jones (R)

Amended: 4/9/25

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/8/25

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Pérez

NOES: Gonzalez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Parole hearings: use of photographs

SOURCE: San Diego District Attorney’s Office

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to consider specified photographs in a parole suitability hearing for an individual incarcerated for a life sentence.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that in the case of any incarcerated person sentenced pursuant to any law, except as specified, the BPH must meet with each incarcerated individual during the sixth year before the individual’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the individual’s activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 3041, Subdivision (subd.) (a)(1).)
2. Requires that during the incarcerated individual’s consultation, the board provide the person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to his or her suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding his or her work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior. Requires the board, within 30 days following the consultation, to issue its positive and negative findings and recommendations to the person in writing. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
3. Requires a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners to meet with the incarcerated person one year before the person’s MEPD and provides that the panel shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)
4. Requires the person to be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits a person from being released before reaching his or her MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)
5. Provides that the panel or the board, sitting en banc, shall grant parole to an incarcerated individual unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)
6. Requires the board to conduct a parole hearing as a de novo hearing. Provides that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing must be considered but are not deemed to be binding upon subsequent parole hearings for an individual. Specifies that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing are subject to reconsideration based upon changed facts and circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (c).) 
7. Requires the BPH, in considering parole for an individual, to consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of parole. Requires BPH to enter on its order granting or denying parole to these individuals, the fact that the statements and recommendations have been considered by it. (Pen. Code, § 3046, subd. (d).)
8. Establishes the youth offender parole hearing process for eligible individuals who were convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and after serving a minimum amount of time, as specified. Defines “youth parole eligible date” as the earliest date upon which a youth offender is eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subds. (a) & (b).)
9. Requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the youth offender parole process, to give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual in accordance with relevant case law. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)
10. Establishes the Elderly Parole Program to be administered by the BPH for purposes of reviewing the parole suitability of any incarcerated person who is 50 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on the individual’s current sentence, serving either a determinate or indeterminate sentence. Defines “elderly parole eligible date” as the date on which an incarcerated individual who qualifies as an elderly offender is eligible for release from prison. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subds. (a) & (b).)
11. Requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the Elderly Parole Program, to give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the person’s risk for future violence. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (c).)
12. Defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” to mean an unreasonable risk that the individual will commit a new violent felony, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (c).)
13. Requires the BPH, within 20 days following any decision denying parole, to send the incarcerated individual a written statement setting forth the reason or reasons for denying parole, and suggest activities in which he or she might participate that will benefit him or her while he or she is incarcerated. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (b)(2).)

This bill provides that the submitted statements and recommendations that must be considered in a parole hearing include, but are not limited to, crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and photographs of weapons used in the crime.

Background

Parole Suitability Hearings. A parole hearing is a hearing to determine whether an incarcerated individual is suitable for release to parole supervision. Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by the BPH in order to be released from prison. An incarcerated individual is entitled to legal counsel at their parole hearing, which may be a private attorney or one appointed by the BPH, and a representative from the District Attorney’s office from the prosecuting county may make a presentation regarding the office’s position on the individual’s suitability for parole.

The Penal Code provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) the fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the person currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) In deciding whether to grant parole, the BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2402, subd. (b), 2281, subd. (b).) Factors the BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) the regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)

Although the parole board is required to consider the circumstances of the offense, the California Supreme Court has held that the parole board may not rely solely on the commitment offense when deciding to grant parole unless the circumstances of the offense “continue to be predictive of current dangerousness.” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.) The parole board is prohibited from requiring an admission of guilt to any crime for which an incarcerated person was committed to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) when considering whether to grant an inmate parole. (Pen. Code, § 5011, subd. (b).) However, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of current dangerousness, without in any sense requiring the inmate to admit guilt as a condition of parole….it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility.” (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 216.) Although the term “insight” is not explicitly included in the regulations, the regulations “direct the Board to consider the inmate’s ‘past and present attitude toward the crime’ and ‘the presence of remorse,’ expressly including indications that the inmate ‘understands the nature and magnitude of the offense’… fit[ting] comfortably within the descriptive category of ‘insight.’” (Id. at 218 (citations omitted).)

Additional guidance for making parole suitability determinations is provided in the regulations which list circumstances tending to show suitability and those tending to show unsuitability. The circumstances which tend to show suitability and unsuitability for parole are set forth as general guidelines, and the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subds. (c) & (d).)

Documents Submitted Prior to Hearings. The BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook provides guidance pertaining to documents that may be submitted by a prosecutor’s office prior to a parole suitability hearing. The handbook specifies that prosecutors submitting documents prior to a parole hearing should not submit documents that are already contained in the incarcerated person’s central file, documents that are lengthy, or documents that were previously submitted by the prosecutor’s office or the courts. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 27 available at <https://www.crcd.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2024/03/pv-CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24.pdf .)

The BPH’s parole handbook states the following as it relates to its policy on the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing:

The Board is tasked with determining whether the person before them poses a current, unreasonable risk of danger to society. In making this determination, the Board must consider all relevant, reliable evidence and uses the SDMF (Structured Decision-Making Framework), which is consistent with empirical research, governing statutes, regulations, and case law. Determining the manner in which factors relevant to parole suitability are considered lies within the discretion of the Board. Relevant information for a parole hearing is defined as “evidence which proves or disproves an issue or fact in dispute.”

The Board accepts the incarcerated person’s conviction as true and is not re-litigating the commitment offense at a parole hearing. Accordingly, hearing panels do not need to consider every piece of evidence presented at trial, including photographic materials. The Board already receives many documents containing information about the crime, which includes documents from courts, prosecutors, probation officers, the incarcerated person, and victims and their family members. Hearing panels review these documents for the hearing and are familiar with the facts of the commitment offense. If there are disputes regarding the commitment offense that need to be resolved, such as an incarcerated person’s implausible denial of the crime, the hearing panel is usually able to resolve these disputes based on materials already in the record. If the hearing panel determines that photographs or other documents are necessary for them to reach a decision on the incarcerated person’s parole suitability, they can postpone or continue the hearing so the additional information can be gathered.

Photographic materials, such as crime scene or autopsy photos, are often very graphic and may contain images of a deceased victim’s unclothed body. When these items are received, they may be scanned and uploaded to the person’s central file, which is accessible to the incarcerated person and CDCR employees statewide. Crime scene and autopsy photos are also generally duplicative of evidence already contained in the record.

For these reasons, the Board will not accept photographs, including crime scene and autopsy pictures. The Board continues to welcome prosecutors’ submission of written documents in compliance with this section. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook, supra at p. 28.)

In support of its statement that it has the discretion to weigh relevant factors in making a parole suitability determination, the Board cites a case which provides:

Resolution of any conflicts in the evidence and the weight to be given the evidence are matters within the authority of [the Board or] the Governor. … [T]he precise manner in which the specified factors relevant to parole suitability are considered and balanced lies within the discretion of [the Board or] the Governor … (internal citations omitted.) (In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192, 210.)

The proponents of this bill assert that this bill was introduced in response to the Board’s policy prohibiting the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing which they state was a departure from the Board’s prior practice

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Significant costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). CDCR anticipates that this bill would substantially increase the workload for administrative staff, forensic clinicians, and hearing panels. CDCR may need to hire additional personnel if BPH is required to receive, process, distribute, and store crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and images of weapons used in the crime. Additionally, the bill names these items, but does not limit to only those documents and photographs.

Moreover, if clinicians and hearing panels are tasked with evaluating this additional evidence, the preparation time per hearing is expected to increase considerably. This added demand could reduce the number of hearings that commissioners and deputy commissioners are able to conduct, potentially necessitating the hiring of more clinicians and hearing officers. In addition, this bill may require the Board to augment its staff with additional attorneys and support staff.

Although the volume of additional materials is currently unknown, preliminary estimates suggest that the resulting staffing cost pressures could range from hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions annually. This estimate does not account for potential cost pressures if the increased workload leads to fewer parole hearings, fewer parole approvals, and ultimately longer time incarcerated when they otherwise would have been potentially found suitable for parole.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

San Diego County District Attorney’s Office (source)

California District Attorneys Association
California Protective Parents Association
California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police
Crime Victims Alliance
Crime Victims United of California
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Riverside County District Attorney

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

ACLU California Action

All of Us or None

Asian Law Alliance

California Public Defenders Association

Californians for Safety and Justice

Californians United for A Responsible Budget

Coalition for Justice and Accountability

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Courage California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Felony Murder Elimination Project

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Initiate Justice

Initiate Justice Action

Justice2Jobs Coalition

La Defensa

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Peace and Justice Law Center

Rubicon Programs

San Francisco Public Defender

Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition

The Change Parallel Project

UnCommon Law

University of San Francisco School of Law, Racial Justice Clinic

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

5/25/25 16:15:05

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 356 (Jones) - Parole hearings: use of photographs

Bill Summary:

SB 356 provides that the statements and recommendations required to be considered by Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) in determining parole for an incarcerated person, include, but are not limited to crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and photographs of weapons used in the crime.

Fiscal Impact:

Significant costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). CDCR anticipates that this bill would substantially increase the workload for administrative staff, forensic clinicians, and hearing panels. CDCR may need to hire additional personnel if BPH is required to receive, process, distribute, and store crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and images of weapons used in the crime. Additionally, the bill names these items, but does not limit to only those documents and photographs.

Moreover, if clinicians and hearing panels are tasked with evaluating this additional evidence, the preparation time per hearing is expected to increase considerably. This added demand could reduce the number of hearings that commissioners and deputy commissioners are able to conduct, potentially necessitating the hiring of more clinicians and hearing officers. In addition, this bill may require the Board to augment its staff with additional attorneys and support staff.

Although the volume of additional materials is currently unknown, preliminary estimates suggest that the resulting staffing cost pressures could range from hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions annually. This estimate does not account for potential cost pressures if the increased workload leads to fewer parole hearings, fewer parole approvals, and ultimately longer time incarcerated when they otherwise would have been potentially found suitable for parole. (See Staff Comments.)

Background:

Penal Code section 1203.01 authorizes the trial court to create a post-judgment record for the benefit of the CDCR and BPH. This record includes a brief statement of the view of the judge, the district attorney, the attorney for the defendant, and the law enforcement agency that investigated the case of the person convicted or sentenced and the crime committed, and any reports the probation officer may have filed about the defendant. These statements are maintained in the incarcerated person’s C-file. Existing law requires BPH, in considering a parole for an incarcerated person, to consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted to the trial court by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff in the post-judgment record.

Under Penal Code section 3042, BPH is required to send written notice of a parole hearing at least 30 days before the hearing to the attorney who represented the defendant at trial, the district attorney of the county in which the offense was committed, the law enforcement agency that investigated the case. Existing law requires BPH, in considering a parole for an incarcerated person, to consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted in response to these notices.

In addition, BPH must consider the recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of parole. BPH must enter on its order granting or denying parole the fact that the statements and recommendations have been considered by it. At any hearing, the presiding hearing officer must state their findings and supporting reasons on the record.

BPH is required to record all of the parole hearings and transcribe recordings of the hearings. The transcripts are required to be filed and maintained in BPH’s office and shall be made available to the public no later than 30 days from the date of the hearing. Any statements, recommendations, or other materials considered are required to be incorporated into the transcript of the hearing, unless the material is confidential in order to preserve institutional security and the security of others who might be endangered by disclosure.

BPH recently enacted a policy disallowing photographs submitted by persons interested in granting or denying parole. BPH explains^[1]:

The Board accepts the incarcerated person’s conviction as true and is not re-litigating the commitment offense at a parole hearing. Accordingly, hearing panels do not need to consider every piece of evidence presented at trial, including photographic materials. The Board already receives many documents containing information about the crime, which includes documents from courts, prosecutors, probation officers, the incarcerated person, and victims and their family members. Hearing panels review these documents for the hearing and are familiar with the facts of the commitment offense. If there are disputes regarding the commitment offense that need to be resolved, such as an incarcerated person’s implausible denial of the crime, the hearing panel is usually able to resolve these disputes based on materials already in the record. If the hearing panel determines that photographs or other documents are necessary for them to reach a decision on the incarcerated person’s parole suitability, they can postpone or continue the hearing so the additional information can be gathered.

Photographic materials, such as crime scene or autopsy photos, are often very graphic and may contain images of a deceased victim’s unclothed body. When these items are received, they may be scanned and uploaded to the person’s central file, which is accessible to the incarcerated person and CDCR employees statewide. Crime scene and autopsy photos are also generally duplicative of evidence already contained in the record.

For these reasons, the Board will not accept photographs, including crime scene and autopsy pictures. The Board continues to welcome prosecutors’ submission of written documents in compliance with this section.

Proposed Law:

This bill provides that the submitted statements and recommendations that must be considered in a parole hearing include, but are not limited to, crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and photographs of weapons used in the crime.

Related Legislation:

SB 286 (Jones) would exclude people convicted of specified crimes from the Elderly Parole Program. SB 286 is pending in this Committee.

Staff Comments:

This bill opens the floodgates for unauthenticated, unverified photographs to be submitted for consideration at parole hearings—regardless of whether those photos were ever admitted in court, vetted for accuracy, or even related to the incarcerated person’s current commitment offense. To be clear, the point of a parole suitability hearing is not to re-litigate culpability, but to assess whether the person currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. ^[2] Requiring consideration of potentially inflammatory images that have zero evidentiary guardrails is unlikely to bear any relevance to this determination, and is more likely to shock, provoke, and bias BPH commissioners, rather than inform them with fair and relevant material. Instead of a hearing centered on public safety, this bill risks turning parole proceedings into a disturbing slideshow of fear-mongering. The sponsor of this bill, the Office of the San Diego County District Attorney, essentially proves this point, writing in support of this measure that “Victims and their families will have the lasting memory of their loved ones, no matter how graphic, considered when the commissioners make parole suitability decisions.”

As for victims, this bill actively risks causing more harm to victims. Under current law, every word spoken at a parole hearing is recorded and transcribed. These are public records. Any statement, recommendation, or other material considered are required to be incorporated into the transcript of the hearing. Should this bill chapter, graphic, sensitive, and deeply personal photos—possibly from cases involving child exploitation, sexual assault, and gang violence—will be public records and put directly into the hands of the incarcerated person. Survivors who have already endured unthinkable trauma may now have images of their most painful moments circulating not only in public but also inside prisons.

Further, BPH already has access to photographs that are part of the post-judgment or trial court record. Should BPH need additional pictures, commissioners are allowed to recess the hearing and request the pictures on a case-by-case basis as necessary. The existing policy simply limits the submission of additional photos.

Not only is this bill unnecessary, it is also costly and could clutter the parole process with potentially irrelevant and unverified graphic photographs. As indicated by CDCR above, this bill could lead to potentially significant workload cost pressures. The increased workload could lead to fewer parole hearings, and increased incarceration. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. By way of illustration, if only five incarcerated people serve an additional 5 years each because of this bill, it would cost the state over $3 million dollars. This is a conservative estimate, given that legislation that increases state prison sentences adds significant costs to CDCR for the delivery of health care and mental health care for an aging population.

-- END --

1. CDCR, Information Considered at a Parole Hearing. Available at: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/parole-suitability-hearings-overview/information-considered-at-a-parole-suitability-hearing/ ↑

2. The courts have explicitly limited BPH’s ability to deny parole based entirely on “immutable circumstances,” such as the “heinous nature of the offense”, instead, BPH is required to consider “only the factors relevant to predicting whether the incarcerated person will be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts.” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal. 4th at 1181, 1191.) ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 356 Hearing Date: April 8, 2025

Subject: Parole hearings: use of photographs

HISTORY

Source: San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

Prior Legislation: None known

Support: California District Attorneys Association; California Protective Parents Association; California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police; Crime Victims United of California; Riverside County District Attorney

Opposition: ACLU California Action; All of Us or None; Asian Law Alliance; California Public Defenders Association; Californians for Safety and Justice; Californians United for A Responsible Budget; Coalition for Justice and Accountability; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice; Courage California; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Initiate Justice; Initiate Justice Action; Justice2Jobs Coalition; La Defensa; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Peace and Justice Law Center; Rubicon Programs; San Francisco Public Defender; Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition; The Change Parallel Project; UnCommon Law; University of San Francisco of Law, Racial Justice Clinic

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to consider specified written statements, documents, online materials, and photographs in a parole suitability hearing for an individual incarcerated for a life sentence.

Existing law provides that in the case of any incarcerated person sentenced pursuant to any law, except as specified, the BPH must meet with each incarcerated individual during the sixth year before the individual’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the individual’s activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law requires that during the incarcerated individual’s consultation, the board provide the person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to his or her suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding his or her work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior. Requires the board, within 30 days following the consultation, to issue its positive and negative findings and recommendations to the person in writing. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law requires a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners to meet with the incarcerated person one year before the person’s MEPD and provides that the panel shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)

Existing law requires the person to be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits a person from being released before reaching his or her MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)

Existing law provides that the panel or the board, sitting en banc, shall grant parole to an incarcerated individual unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)

Existing law requires the board to conduct a parole hearing as a de novo hearing. Provides that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing must be considered but are not deemed to be binding upon subsequent parole hearings for an individual. Specifies that findings made and conclusions reached in a prior parole hearing are subject to reconsideration based upon changed facts and circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (c).) 

Existing law requires the BPH, in considering parole for an individual, to consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of parole. Requires BPH to enter on its order granting or denying parole to these individuals, the fact that the statements and recommendations have been considered by it. (Pen. Code, § 3046, subd. (d).)

Existing law establishes the youth offender parole hearing process for eligible individuals who were convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and after serving a minimum amount of time, as specified. Defines “youth parole eligible date” as the earliest date upon which a youth offender is eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subds. (a) & (b).)

Existing law requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the youth offender parole process, to give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual in accordance with relevant case law. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)

Existing law establishes the Elderly Parole Program to be administered by the BPH for purposes of reviewing the parole suitability of any incarcerated person who is 50 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on the individual’s current sentence, serving either a determinate or indeterminate sentence. Defines “elderly parole eligible date” as the date on which an incarcerated individual who qualifies as an elderly offender is eligible for release from prison. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subds. (a) & (b).)

Existing law requires the BPH, when considering the release of an individual via the Elderly Parole Program, to give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the person’s risk for future violence. (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (c).)

Existing law defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” to mean an unreasonable risk that the individual will commit a new violent felony, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (c).)

Existing law requires the BPH, within 20 days following any decision denying parole, to send the incarcerated individual a written statement setting forth the reason or reasons for denying parole, and suggest activities in which he or she might participate that will benefit him or her while he or she is incarcerated. (Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (b)(2).)

This bill provides that the submitted statements and recommendations that must be considered in a parole hearing include, but are not limited to, written statements, photographs, crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, photographs of weapons used in the crime, photographs of the inmate, photographs of the victim, police reports, investigative reports, autopsy reports, victim and witness statements, court transcripts, court documents, printed media articles, social media postings, online petitions, business records, and any other documents or photographs relevant to determining parole suitability.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

In early January 2024, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) enacted a policy that prevents the submission of photographs deemed “graphic” for consideration at parole hearings. This change was implemented without public notice, stakeholder input, or transparency, and it denies commissioners access to critical evidence when making parole suitability decisions.

Photographs of the crime scene, autopsy, and other related images are essential to understanding the nature of the crime and evaluating an inmate’s credibility and insight. California law, under Title 15 of the Code of Regulations, requires that an inmate’s commitment offense be reviewed when determining parole suitability. The Board has an obligation to consider all relevant and reliable evidence in its decision-making process. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 2281(b).)

Historically, commissioners have used photographic evidence to assess an inmate’s truthfulness, remorse, and rehabilitation. These images provide visual confirmation of case facts that written reports alone cannot convey. By excluding such evidence, the Board undermines public safety and disregards the voices of crime victims and their families.

SB 356 ensures that the Board must accept all relevant materials, including photographs, for consideration at parole hearings. This bill restores fairness and transparency in the parole process, ensuring that victims’ families are heard and that commissioners have the necessary tools to make informed decisions.

1. Parole Hearings

A parole hearing is a hearing to determine whether an incarcerated individual is suitable for release to parole supervision. Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by the BPH in order to be released from prison. An incarcerated individual is entitled to legal counsel at their parole hearing, which may be a private attorney or one appointed by the BPH, and a representative from the District Attorney’s office from the prosecuting county may make a presentation regarding the office’s position on the individual’s suitability for parole.

The Penal Code provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) The fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the person currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) In deciding whether to grant parole, the BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2402, subd. (b), 2281, subd. (b).) Factors the BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) The regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)

Although the parole board is required to consider the circumstances of the offense, the California Supreme Court has held that the parole board may not rely solely on the commitment offense when deciding to grant parole unless the circumstances of the offense “continue to be predictive of current dangerousness.” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.) The parole board is prohibited from requiring an admission of guilt to any crime for which an incarcerated person was committed to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) when considering whether to grant an inmate parole. (Pen. Code, § 5011, subd. (b).) However, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of current dangerousness, without in any sense requiring the inmate to admit guilt as a condition of parole….it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility.” (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 216.) Although the term “insight” is not explicitly included in the regulations, the regulations “direct the Board to consider the inmate’s ‘past and present attitude toward the crime’ and ‘the presence of remorse,’ expressly including indications that the inmate ‘understands the nature and magnitude of the offense’… fit[ting] comfortably within the descriptive category of ‘insight.’” (Id. at 218 (citations omitted).)

Additional guidance for making parole suitability determinations is provided in the regulations which list circumstances tending to show suitability and those tending to show unsuitability. The following circumstances tend to show unsuitability for release:

• The person committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. The factors to be considered include:
  • Multiple victims were attacked, injured or killed in the same or separate incidents.
  • The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution-style murder.
  • The victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense.
  • The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering.
  • The motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense.
• The person on previous occasions inflicted or attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the incinerated person demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early age.
• The person has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others.
• The person has previously sexually assaulted another in a manner calculated to inflict unusual pain or fear upon the victim.
• The person has a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense.
• The person has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (c).)

The following are circumstances tending to show suitability for release:

• The person does not have a record of assaulting others as a juvenile or committing crimes with a potential of personal harm to victims.
• The person has experienced reasonably stable relationships with others.
• The person performed acts which tend to indicate the presence of remorse, such as attempting to repair the damage, seeking help for or relieving suffering of the victim, or indicating that he understands the nature and magnitude of the offense.
• The person committed his or her crime as the result of significant stress in his or her life, especially if the stress has built over a long period of time.
• At the time of the commission of the crime, the person suffered from Battered Woman Syndrome, as defined, and it appears the criminal behavior was the result of that victimization.
• The person lacks any significant history of violent crime.
• The person’s present age reduces the probability of recidivism.
• The person has made realistic plans for release or has developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release.
• Institutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (d).)

The circumstances which tend to show suitability and unsuitability for parole are set forth as general guidelines, and the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subds. (c) & (d).)

1. Submission of Documents Prior to a Parole Hearing

Generally

The BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook provides guidance pertaining to documents that may be submitted by a prosecutor’s office prior to a parole suitability hearing. It provides:

Prosecutors have a right to attend a parole hearing, and the Board welcomes prosecutors’ input. To comply with the law and to ensure the input is submitted timely to the hearing panel, the Board proposes these general guidelines. Prosecutors are not required to submit documents to the Board for a parole hearing, but they may do so if they have documents that are reliable and relevant to a parole suitability determination. Most relevant law enforcement and court documents such as arrest reports, minute orders, abstracts of judgment, and probation officer reports are submitted to CDCR when a person is first admitted to state prison so they are already in the person’s central file. Prosecutors are expected to review the incarcerated person’s central file and the Board’s hearing packet to determine if a document they believe is relevant has already been submitted to CDCR. Any additional documents submitted should be brief, clearly written, and relevant to the person’s suitability for parole. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 27 available at <https://www.crcd.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2024/03/pv-CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24.pdf>.)

The handbook specifies that prosecutors submitting documents prior to a parole hearing should not submit documents that are already contained in the incarcerated person’s central file, documents that are lengthy, or documents that were previously submitted by the prosecutor’s office or the courts. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook, supra at p. 27.)

Photographs

The BPH’s parole handbook states the following as it relates to its policy on the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing:

The Board is tasked with determining whether the person before them poses a current, unreasonable risk of danger to society. In making this determination, the Board must consider all relevant, reliable evidence and uses the SDMF (Structured Decision-Making Framework), which is consistent with empirical research, governing statutes, regulations, and case law. Determining the manner in which factors relevant to parole suitability are considered lies within the discretion of the Board. Relevant information for a parole hearing is defined as “evidence which proves or disproves an issue or fact in dispute.”

The Board accepts the incarcerated person’s conviction as true and is not re-litigating the commitment offense at a parole hearing. Accordingly, hearing panels do not need to consider every piece of evidence presented at trial, including photographic materials. The Board already receives many documents containing information about the crime, which includes documents from courts, prosecutors, probation officers, the incarcerated person, and victims and their family members. Hearing panels review these documents for the hearing and are familiar with the facts of the commitment offense. If there are disputes regarding the commitment offense that need to be resolved, such as an incarcerated person’s implausible denial of the crime, the hearing panel is usually able to resolve these disputes based on materials already in the record. If the hearing panel determines that photographs or other documents are necessary for them to reach a decision on the incarcerated person’s parole suitability, they can postpone or continue the hearing so the additional information can be gathered.

Photographic materials, such as crime scene or autopsy photos, are often very graphic and may contain images of a deceased victim’s unclothed body. When these items are received, they may be scanned and uploaded to the person’s central file, which is accessible to the incarcerated person and CDCR employees statewide. Crime scene and autopsy photos are also generally duplicative of evidence already contained in the record.

For these reasons, the Board will not accept photographs, including crime scene and autopsy pictures. The Board continues to welcome prosecutors’ submission of written documents in compliance with this section. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook, supra at p. 28.)

In support of its statement that it has the discretion to weigh relevant factors in making a parole suitability determination, the Board cites a case which provides:

Resolution of any conflicts in the evidence and the weight to be given the evidence are matters within the authority of [the Board or] the Governor. … [T]he precise manner in which the specified factors relevant to parole suitability are considered and balanced lies within the discretion of [the Board or] the Governor … (internal citations omitted.) (In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192, 210.)

1. Effect of This Bill

The proponents of this bill assert that this bill was introduced in response to the Board’s policy prohibiting the submission of photographs prior to a parole hearing which they state was a departure from the Board’s prior practice. However, the scope of this bill goes beyond the submission of photographs.

This bill amends Penal Code section 3046 which currently requires the BPH to consider all statements and recommendations which have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, sheriff, and other individuals interested in the granting or denying of parole, when considering whether to grant or deny parole for an individual. This bill specifies that the submitted statements and recommendations that must be considered in a parole hearing include, but are not limited to, “written statements, photographs, crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, photographs of weapons used in the crime, photographs of the incarcerated person, photographs of the victim, police reports, investigative reports, autopsy reports, victim and witness statements, court transcripts, court documents, printed media articles, social media postings, online petitions, business records, and any other documents or photographs relevant to determining parole suitability.”

If the impetus for the bill’s introduction was the Board’s adoption of a policy related to the submission of crime scene and autopsy photographs, should the bill include any other materials—in particular, the printed media articles, social media postings, online petitions, and business records?

1. Argument in Support

According to the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, the bill’s sponsor:

SB 356 will assure that the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH or Board) shall accept photographs and other relevant material for consideration at parole hearings. …

In 2023, the Board began working on a handbook for parole hearings that would be made available to the public. The Board included a “policy” that it would no longer accept photographs it deemed graphic in nature, including crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, or any other photo it deemed graphic. Stakeholders expressed concerns about this new policy and the legalities of it, but BPH unilaterally enacted the policy without regard for the concerns.

…

The Board has stopped accepting photographs that it deems graphic in its subjective opinion. … Initially, the Board simply said it would not accept the photos and removed them from submissions. Recently, the Board has not only stopped accepting the photographs, but it has refused to accept entire submissions of documents if any photographs deemed graphic were included. …

Prior to this “policy,” there were no restrictions on submitting photographs in preparation for a parole hearing. District Attorney’s offices across the state routinely submitted photographs prior to a hearing, in appropriate cases, for the commissioners to consider in determining parole suitability. Commissioners routinely used the photos to assist them in making parole suitability decisions at parole hearings and discussed them on the record.

Commissioners have a very important and crucial responsibility to preside over parole hearings and make difficult decisions on whether inmates remain too dangerous to release into the community. Their decisions have wide ranging effects… Limiting commissioners’ access to all available information at parole hearings when making decisions about releasing criminals from prison is a concerning practice that endangers the public safety of our communities. Restricting the commissioners from using relevant and reliable evidence at parole hearings undermines their duty to the public and infringes on their ability to ensure that inmates who still pose a danger to the community are not released from prison.

1. Argument in Opposition

The California Public Defenders Association writes:

While most public defenders do not represent individuals at their parole suitability hearings, these are our former clients and we have a vested interest in seeing that they are released on parole when they have shown that they no longer pose a danger to the community.

Parole hearings are not the appropriate setting to relitigate the facts of someone’s commitment offense. These determinations take place during trial and sentencing in the presence of a judge. Rather, the central determination in a parole hearing as defined by the California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence, is whether someone poses a current “unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.” (In re Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th at 1181, 1191 (2008).) The Lawrence court explicitly limited Board of Parole Hearing’s ability to deny parole based entirely on “immutable circumstances,” such as the heinous nature of the offense, instead, directing the Board to consider “only the factors relevant to predicting whether the incarcerated person “will be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts.’” Consistent with the governing case law, the hearing panel clearly states on the record at the beginning of every hearing, “We are not here to reconsider or retry your original case. We accept as true the findings of the previous court. The purpose of today’s hearing is to find out who you are today and whether you pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society.”

By forcing graphic crime scene photos to be considered in a parole hearing, SB 356 jeopardizes the intent and legal framework of a parole hearing and it is unnecessary because parole commissioners already have access to ample relevant information regarding the commitment offense. Prior to a hearing, the panel receives many documents with detailed information about the commitment offense including probation officer reports, sentencing transcripts, autopsy reports, written statements from prosecutors, as well as statements submitted by victims and their family members. … On the rare occasion that a crime scene or autopsy photograph would be helpful or useful in resolving a disputed issue to determine a person’s current risk of danger, the Board has the discretion to work with law enforcement to obtain the photographs for consideration in a parole hearing.

SB 356 is a misguided attempt to subvert the fact and law based inquiry by the Board about an individual’s current suitability for parole by introducing graphic crime scene photos, social media posts and petitions into the Board’s decision making. It is a waste of taxpayer resources and would make our communities less safe by using funding that could be better spent on mental health care, substance abuse, education and housing on incarcerating individuals who would be safe in the community.

-- END --