[Scroll down for further.]

(1) Murder.
(2) Arson, as provided in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451 of the Penal Code.
(3) Robbery.
(4) Rape with force, violence, or threat of great bodily harm.
(5) Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm.
(6) A lewd or lascivious act as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 288 of the Penal Code.
(7) Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm.
(8) An offense specified in subdivision (a) of Section 289 of the Penal Code.
(9) Kidnapping for ransom.
(10) Kidnapping for purposes of robbery.
(11) Kidnapping with bodily harm.
(12) Attempted murder.
(13) Assault with a firearm or destructive device.
(14) Assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
(15) Discharge of a firearm into an inhabited or occupied building.
(16) An offense described in Section 1203.09 of the Penal Code.
(17) An offense described in Section 12022.5 or 12022.53 of the Penal Code.
(18) A felony offense in which the minor personally used a weapon described in any provision listed in Section 16590 of the Penal Code.
(19) A felony offense described in Section 136.1 or 137 of the Penal Code.
(20) Manufacturing, compounding, or selling one-half ounce or more of a salt or solution of a controlled substance specified in subdivision (e) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code.
(21) A violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, which also would constitute a felony violation of subdivision (b) of Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.
(22) Escape, by the use of force or violence, from a county juvenile hall home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp in violation of subdivision (b) of Section 871 if great bodily injury is intentionally inflicted upon an employee of the juvenile facility during the commission of the escape.
(23) Torture as described in Sections 206 and 206.1 of the Penal Code.
(24) Aggravated mayhem, as described in Section 205 of the Penal Code.
(25) Carjacking, as described in Section 215 of the Penal Code, while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
(26) Kidnapping for purposes of sexual assault, as punishable in subdivision (b) of Section 209 of the Penal Code.
(27) Kidnapping as punishable in Section 209.5 of the Penal Code.
(28) The offense described in subdivision (c) of Section 26100 of the Penal Code.
(29) The offense described in Section 18745 of the Penal Code.
(30) Voluntary manslaughter, as described in subdivision (a) of Section 192 of the Penal Code.

Sponsor

Sponsor

SB 1391 [co-authored by state Senator Holly Mitchell (D, Culver City-Los Angeles)] would amend aspects of Proposition 57 (voter enacted in November 2018) by eliminating a judge's discretion in deciding (after a hearing) whether a minor should be tried as an adult or sent to juvenile proceedings. Prop 57's supporters had touted a provision giving judges discretion instead of letting prosecutors decide whether to try a juvenile as an adult. If SB 1391 is enacted, judges could no longer decide whether to send a 14 or 15 year old to an adult criminal court for the offenses listed above; the accused would automatically become subject to CA's juvenile justice laws (that, among other things, in most cases prevent public identification of the accused/convicted, block public and press access to trial proceedings, prioritize rehabilitation, maximize opportunities for parole and end incarceration by age 25.)

Senator Lara, who is running for statewide Insurance Commissioner in Nov. 2018, called SB 1391 part "Equity and Justice 2.0." a second set of bills he's now advancing after a first set he advanced in 2017 changed various aspects of CA's juvenile justice system.

During the Committee hearing (audio and video coverage below), SB 1391's proponents (including Sen. Lara) criticized actions of the early 2000's in which Sacramento lawmakers and the public in ballot measures (supported by crime victim advocates at the time) toughed state criminal laws applicable to juveniles. Proponents of the bill said the past actions don't reflect current scientific findings on how individuals mature (one witness citing brain development.) Several supporters referred to 14 and 15 year olds accused of the crimes listed above as children; some (including Senator Lara) said current laws had disproportionately impacted those accused and convicted based on race and ethnicity.

Sponsor

On April 3, the state Senate's Public Safety Committee approved SB 1391 on a 5-1-1 vote (tally here.) It now proceeds to the state Senate Appropriations Committee (chaired by SB 1391 author, Sen Lara) which can advance it to the full Senate.

For audio podcast coverage of the state Senate's Public Safety Committee hearing, click embed below.

For on demand video (via the California Channel), click embed below. (On video, Sen. Lara opens and supportive witnesses testify starting at 1:21:20. Witnesses in opposition begin at 1:44:15. Senators' comments begin at 1:47:15 and run to 2:04:10.)

The state Senate Public Safety Committee staff analysis lists SB 1391's primary sponsors as the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Human Rights Watch, National Center for Youth Law, Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, Silicon Valley De-Bug and the W. Haywood Burns Institute.

The bill is opposed by the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California District Attorneys Association; California State Sheriffs’ Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League.

The measure's Committee listed supporters were listed as:

ACLU of California; American Academy of Pediatrics; Asian Law Alliance;
Berkeley Organizing Congregations for Action; Berkeley Underground Scholars;
Beyond the Stats at UC Davis; Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency;
California Catholic Conference; California Public Defenders Association;
California State Conference of the NAACP; Californians United for a
Responsible Budget; The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth; Campaign
for Youth Justice; Center for Juvenile Law and Policy; Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice; Children's Advocacy Institute; Children's Defense FundCalifornia;
The Children's Initiative; Children's Law Center of California;
Coalition for Justice and Accountability; Coleman Advocates for Children &
Youth; Community Agency for Resources Advocacy and Services; Community
Development Technologies Center; Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance;
Courage Campaign; #cut50; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Felony Murder
Elimination Act; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Healing
Dialogue and Action; Hermanos Macehual; Human Rights Watch; Justice Policy
Institute; Juvenile Justice Initiative; Juvenile Law Center; Legal Services for
Children; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Louisiana Center for
Children's Rights; Minor Differences; Motivating Individual Leadership for
Public Advancement; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Juvenile
Justice Network; The New Jersey Parent's Caucus; Pacific Juvenile Defender
Center; Prison Law Office; Progressive Christians Uniting; Project Rebound;
Reentry Solutions Group; Root and Rebound; Sacramento Area Youth Speaks;
San Francisco Public Defenders Office; The Sentencing Project; Services,
Immigrant Rights and Education Network; Texas Criminal Justice Coalition; USC
Gould School of Law Post-Conviction Justice Project; USF School of Law
Criminal & Juvenile Justice Clinic; Young Women's Freedom Center; Youth
Alive!; Youth Justice Coalition; Youth Law Center; several individuals

To read the "Public Safety Committee" legislative analysis of the bill, click here. .

Sponsor

Sponsor