California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly Bipartisan · 3 D · 1 R cosponsors

AB 679 — Criminal trials: testimony of in-custody informants.

Last action — Died on inactive file.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law prohibits a jury or judge from convicting a defendant, finding a special circumstance true, or using a fact in aggravation based on the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant. Existing law defines "in-custody informant" for these purposes as a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator, whose testimony is based on statements allegedly made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant were held within a city or county jail, state penal institution, or correctional institution. Existing law provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. This bill would instead make testimony by, or information obtained by, an in-custody informant, as defined, regarding statements made by the defendant while the defendant was in custody, inadmissible, as specified. The bill would provide an exemption for such testimony relating to a crime or incident occurring within a correctional facility and testimony obtained pursuant to a law enforcement operation, as described, that meets specified criteria.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Died on inactive file.

  2. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Friedman.

  3. Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 1577.)

  4. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  5. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (April 28).

  6. Coauthors revised.

  7. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  8. Coauthors revised.

  9. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.

  11. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  12. From printer. May be heard in committee March 15.

  13. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 6 co-sponsors · 115 not signed on · 5 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Friedman

Co-sponsors (6)

Not signed on (115)

115 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 115 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 2000
Democratic 4000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
McCarty — Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Education]

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 1001
Total 7001
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7100
Democratic 4101
Republican 0200
Total 11401
% of votes cast 69%25%0%6%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Nay
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 679 do?
Existing law prohibits a jury or judge from convicting a defendant, finding a special circumstance true, or using a fact in aggravation based on the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant. Existing law defines "in-custody informant" for these purposes as a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator, whose testimony is based on statements allegedly made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant were held within a city or county jail, state penal institution, or correctional institution. Existing law provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. This bill would instead make testimony by, or information obtained by, an in-custody informant, as defined, regarding statements made by the defendant while the defendant was in custody, inadmissible, as specified. The bill would provide an exemption for such testimony relating to a crime or incident occurring within a correctional facility and testimony obtained pursuant to a law enforcement operation, as described, that meets specified criteria.
Who sponsors AB 679?
AB 679 is sponsored by Friedman, Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca (Democratic), Quirk, Wicks, Buffy (Democratic), Kamlager, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), and Gonzalez, Jeff (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 679?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 679?
Track AB 679 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 679

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 679

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →