Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. We'll go ahead and in the interest of time, start as a Subcommitee, and I'll welcome our new Member when he's here. The rules for witness testimony are the east side will be allowed two main witnesses.

Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill. Additional witnesses should state their names, organization, if any, and their position. As we proceed with witness and public comment, I want to make sure one understands the Committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing.

And we will begin with any Senators that are from San Jose. Hey, that's the hometown advantage over here. Also has to be number one in the pilot.

Good to have a little levity first thing in the morning. Good morning, Chair, and good to see you. And Members, I'm pleased to present SB 554, With the Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Restraining Orders without Borders.

SB 554 would allow survivors of domestic violence or harassment to petition for an order in a California court, regardless of residency status. 25 states currently allow a petitioner to be a non-resident, and 33 states explicitly allow a survivor to file a petition in a perpetrator's county.

Current laws in California fail to outline jurisdictional responsibility for restraining order petitions. This gap often causes courts to dismiss or deny restraining orders when parties are in different states, even if the survivor fled for safety. The nature of abuse has transformed, and so must our laws.

Modern technology, among other things, provides perpetrators a variety of new tools to commit interstate violence. Fleeing to another state is no longer sufficient protection if it ever was.

SB 554 codifies that an individual need not be a resident to file a petition for a restraining order if the defendant is a resident of California or the crime was committed in the state. The need for this Bill is tremendous. Interstate violence is now the norm, not the exception.

Perpetrators have no borders, and neither should a survivor's protection. With us today is Nazeehah Khan with Restrained Orders without Borders. Thank you again, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Nazeehah Khan. I'm a sexual assault survivor, and I'm the founder of restraining orders without Borders who passed versions of this Bill in Hawaii last year and in Oregon three months ago. In 2022, I was sexually assaulted while visiting my hometown in Hawaii.

In the months after I was denied a restraining order by both California and Hawaii due to the jurisdictional chaos when both parties are from different states. Hawaii did not permit non-resident survivors to petition a law that we've since changed.

And I realize California statute does not detail a non-resident survivor's jurisdiction or include them as explicit petitioners for orders the way that other states do. Survivors often represent themselves in court, relying on statute to understand their rights and support them when they navigate the justice system, often for the first time.

And the statute as written currently fails them. This bill clarifies a non-resident survivor's ability to request a protection or restraining order. It creates a pathway to protection for California's 9 million survivors and 250 million annual visitors.

It gives California the opportunity to join 15 states with the most comprehensive restraining order access lawsuit and the 25 states which implement variations of this bill. Being sexually assaulted feels like the end of the world. And in so many ways it is.

Turning to courts meant fighting the conditioning to stay quiet and endure injustice, to not make a fuss, to swallow the trauma, to not draw attention to what felt like a ravaged life. And our justice system looked at my courage. They looked at my hope, my vulnerability, and they failed me.

I was punted between the Hawaii and California justice systems, each telling me to go to the other and neither stomaching my urgency. Survivors are asking for protection now because they needed the protection then. California is being asked to reckon with navigating justice in an increasingly interconnected world.

The uncomplicated answer to that must be that a victim's residency status should not dictate if their life is worthy of protection. I urge your aye vote and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 554?

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 554? All right, any question, comments? Well, we don't have a quorum yet, but when we do, we'll certainly take up the matter. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward.

It seems like California is playing catch up here, but it's always good when we can actually ensure we're doing everything we can to protect survivors.

And I want to thank Restraining Orders without Borders. Looks like you've been having some pretty good success around the country, and I'm confident that you'll have success here given your author as well as you and your organization fighting so hard for survivors to really close this important loophole. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, for your support, your help, the support of the Committee staff to get here today, and hopefully the support of a majority of the Committee when you have that opportunity. Thank you. And again, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Item three, SB 1386, Senator Caballero.

How about a Senator who used to represent San Jose?

Well, you're the next closest. We only have three items, so. Senator Bradford. Even if Senator Bradford was here, he'd have to wait for you.

That sounds horrible. Well, thank you, Mister Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SB 1386, which will clarify the civil rape law, a law that protects the privacy of survivors of sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery, by prohibiting at-trial inquiries regarding their sexual histories.

This bill is based on the experience of a Jane Doe, a fourth-grade, eight-year-old girl who was sexually abused over a one-year period from 2009 to 2010 by her teacher. Subsequently, the same victim was sexually abused by a family friend in 2013, while still a minority.

Thereafter, she received counseling for her trauma and she reported her prior sexual abuse. The trial court ruled that evidence of the subsequent sexual assault suffered by Jane Doe could be admitted as evidence to undermine her credibility. So, the second abuse.

In reviewing the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court ruled that the defendant school district may seek to admit evidence of a survivor's other sexual conduct to impeach the survivors credibility.

SB 1386 would protect survivors of sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery from further victimization by explicitly stating that the civil rape shield law, a law that seeks to protect the privacy of the survivors, prohibits inquiries into their sexual histories to impeach their testimony as to consent or to damages.

Rape shield laws are specifically designed to protect survivors from unnecessary and intrusive inquiries into their personal lives and sexual histories.

And I think we all agree that children who can't give consent in particular. But forcing survivors to disclose details about their intimate life or to relive traumatic incidents unrelated to the case in order to determine their credibility can be as traumatizing as the assault itself.

SB 1386 would clarify that evidence of a victim's sexual conduct unrelated to the case is not admissible to impeach their testimony as to consent or damages. This bill will preserve the integrity of the civil rape shield law and foster a supportive environment for survivors to come forward and seek the justice they deserve.

With me to testify today is civil rights attorney Michael Carrillo, who did the trial, and Jessica Stender with the Equal Rights Advocates.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, proud co-sponsor of SB 1386. Thank you, Senator Caballero, for your leadership and to the Committee for the opportunity to testify.

Since 1974, Equal Rights Advocates has advocated for the rights of women, girls, and people across genders who have experienced sexual harassment and assault at school and at work. We are acutely aware of the ways in which survivors of sexual harassment and assault are often re-traumatized in the process of seeking justice.

For many survivors, having details about their intimate life unnecessarily thrust in the spotlight, or being forced to relive other harm they endured separate from the sexual assault at issue can be as traumatizing as the assault itself. This deters reporting and opens the door to harassing conduct when survivors do come forward.

For this reason, the Legislature passed the rape shield laws, putting a categorical ban on the use of evidence of sexual history to prove consent or lack of harm.

As the Legislature noted at that time, without this protection, survivors face a catch-22 of coming forward, but only at the risk of enduring invasive intrusions into details of their personal lives and discovery to allow evidence that the Legislature categorically barred in subsection A of the statute under the guise of impeaching credibility, circumvents the prohibition at the heart of the rape shield protections, and undermines the intent of the Legislature.

Just recently, in the context of a Title IX matter where my organization represented the survivor, the respondent tried to introduce irrelevant and harassing past sexual history of the survivor related to past romantic partners and asked her if she had accused men in the past of abuse.

We were able to put a stop to the attempted intrusive line of questioning. However, this example is instructive as the importance of robust application of civil rape shield protections for more generally to ensure survivors are not chilled from coming forward.

This bill provides an important clarification to our longstanding civil rape shield law and to ensure that the law is applied as the Legislature intended. For this reason, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. My name is Michael Carrillo. I'm here on behalf of the bill co-sponsors CAOC, and I'm a partner at the Carrillo Law Firm in South Pasadena. I've spent my entire professional career representing individuals and civil rights actions as well as victims of sexual violence.

The California Legislature recognized the importance of limiting the admissibility of a survivor's sexual history or past conduct in civil court proceedings in sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual battery cases, and that's why they passed the civil rape shield statutes in 1985.

However, clarity of this statute is needed in order to protect survivors of sexual violence from being further victimized while seeking justice. Little Susie was in fourth grade when she suffered horrific sexual abuse by her teacher. Among the abuses, her teacher forced her to perform oral sex multiple times, and she was eight years old.

Sadly, Susie was not his only victim, and she brought an action, along with others, against the school district and the perpetrator for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and failing to warn, train, or educate her as to this potential abuse and for not reporting this abuse under negligence per se.

In her case, the school district attempted to introduce unrelated evidence of the subsequent sexual assault she suffered in order to, quote, impeach her credibility as to the source of her claimed harm. The trial court permitted this evidence without considering the ramifications of what this might do to someone trying to speak out and find their voice.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Section 1106 E may permit admission of evidence for impeachment purposes that would otherwise be excluded under Section 1106 A and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court's holding in the Mountain View case is inconsistent with the original legislative intent, and impact of allowing such evidence will cause a chilling effect on survivors who wish to come forward to seek accountability but may not do so for fear of having their sexual history brought forth and paraded in front of a jury.

That is why SB 1386 is before you today. This bill amends section 1106 to clarify the evidence of a plaintiff's separate sexual history may not be used to impeach a survivor's testimony as to consent or lack of harm.

This means that victims of sexual assault like Susie, will not have to fear that their entire sexual history can be brought up to court if they try to bring forward, try to go forward, and get justice for horrendous sexual assault that they have suffered. I'm happy to answer any questions and urge your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1386?

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone else, is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1386? We'll bring it back to Committee. We don't have a quorum yet. When we do. Yes. So we're excited to be able to move this bill forward because it's important legislation.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward, the sponsors and their testimony, especially when you hear stories of what happens. As you mentioned talking about Susie, I mean, this is precisely why the rape shield law is there.

If we need to close or make it even more clear for our jurists and our lawyers that we shouldn't even venture into allowing this kind of evidence in to attack the credibility or impeach these witnesses. That will make it even more clear. And I want to thank the Senator for bringing this forward to do that.

I think it'll. I'm hopeful this will finally achieve the goal of really creating that strong shield that I think the Legislature and all of us have intended over the years. When we get a quorum, we'll certainly take it up, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I'll adopt your summation as my closing. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Excellent. All right. Madam Secretary, can we take a roll call for quorum, please?

[Roll call]

All right, we do have a quorum. We'll move on to file item two, SB 924. Senator Bradford, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair. This is common sense measure.

It just simply removes the sunset that was stated for July 12025 from a measure I passed in 2020, SB 1157, which made it voluntary for individuals to report their on time payments to a credit agency to establish credit in the five years, four years, I should say that this Bill has been in place.

Thousands of individuals have contacted my office saying they've been able to establish credit and purchase homes. This Bill builds on the success again of 1157 and continues to provide a tool for Low income renters in California to improve their credit score.

These renters are still responsible for paying their portion of rent in a timely manner and pay the associated fees with those services. And I respectfully ask for. I vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 924?

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support. Good morning.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 924? All right, bring it back to Committee.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you so much for continuing this important program. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Give roll call vote on SB 924.

Motion is due pass to appropriations [Roll call].

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members.

Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? Second motion, a second roll call vote on the consent calendar, please.

[Roll call].

All right, consent calendar's out. Do we have a motion on item one, SB 554? Motion a second roll call vote, please.

[Roll call].

All right, that Bill is out. And do we have a motion on item three, SB 1386.

So moved.

Motion and second.

[Roll call].

Okay, the Bill is out, so we're all done. I'll just. We'll stick around here for some add ons, but thank you all so much.

I want to thank seminary Lee for subbing in this morning. Similarly, we have the consent calendar and just three items that were heard otherwise. So if we can go ahead and just start with consent and then go through the three items.

[Roll call].

All right. Thank you so much. We are adjourned.