Solano DA urges Newsom to veto Assembly bill that, she says, lacks offender accountability
Krishna Abrams contends AB 3234 allows judges to divert offenders over objections from prosecutors for most misdemeanors
Solano County District Attorney Krishna Abrams and California prosecutors urge Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto a bill that, they say, would threaten public safety by allowing drunken drivers, elder abusers and those convicted of theft, vandalism, weapons, drugs and vehiclular manslaughter charges to have their cases dismissed after completing diversion instead of being held accountable.
Written by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, AB 3234 creates a court-initiated diversion program, allowing a Superior Court judge to divert a misdemeanor defendant over the objection of the prosecution.
But, at the same time, it spells out that the following misdemeanors cannot merit diversion: any offense requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender, domestic violence, or stalking.
Passed by the Assembly on Aug. 24, by the Senate on Aug. 31, and sent to the governor’s desk on Sept. 15, it also provides that a person may be eligible for parole at age 50 if they have served at least 20 years in prison.
The bill is supported by the California Public Defenders Association, Californians for Safety and Justice, and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, among others. It is opposed by the California District Attorneys Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, Crimes Victims United of California, the Judicial Council, the latter the rule-making arm of the state court system, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Solano, voted against it, according to trackbill.com.
In a press release issued last week, Abrams wrote that her office “wholly supports diversion in appropriate cases” but opposes AB 3234, because, she contends, it allows the court to divert offenders over the objection of a prosecuting attorney for “most misdemeanor crimes without any accountability.”
“This bill is unnecessary as such diversion programs already exist throughout the state,” she added in the prepared statement. “Additionally, it is so far-reaching that it appears to run afoul of the intent and spirit of traditional diversion programs.”
Her office already uses several programs that provide for diversion in appropriate cases, Abrams noted, adding besides the DA’s longstanding pretrial diversion program, her office also has introduced, since January 2018, a prefiling diversion program, and the first Neighborhood Court program, to address low-level misdemeanor offenses.
Neighborhood Court provides a restorative justice outcome outside the traditional criminal justice system, she explained. Volunteers work collaboratively with the participants “to swiftly address harm inflicted on the community and together reach a just outcome.”
“Currently, no offender is diverted on any criminal offense without consultation and input from crime victims,” Abrams pointed out. “Cases are carefully reviewed to ensure that terms and conditions imposed adequately address the underlying conduct.”
AB 3234 is based on a 2014 Los Angeles County diversion pilot program that expired in 2018. The LA program was applied generally to first-time offenders, but it included numerous exclusions, among them DUIs, weapons charges, crimes against elders and minors, possession of child pornography and annoying or molesting a child. It also excluded defendants who had prior diversion and defendants with a record of prior violence within the last 10 years.
Most of those exclusions were not included in Ting’s bill, which, among several things, drew the clear objection from Abrams and the state’s prosecutors.
“We believe that AB 3234 is overbroad” because it allows judges to divert most misdemeanor crimes “without sufficient consideration of public safety,” she wrote in the release. “We cannot in good conscience support such a drastic measure that would circumvent offender accountability.”
For Newsom to sign the bill into law would allow “dangerous and repeat offenders to avoid responsibility and consequences for their criminal conduct, infringes upon the rights of crime victims, and it increases the risk to public safety,” she added.