SB 441 — Criminal procedure: discovery.
Last action — Ordered to third reading.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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, as enacted by Proposition 115, an initiative statute adopted by the voters at the June 5, 1990, statewide primary election, requires a prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defendant specified items of discovery, including the names and addresses of any persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses, the felony convictions of specified material witnesses, and any exculpatory evidence. Existing law requires a party, before seeking court enforcement of these disclosures, to make an informal request of opposing counsel for the information. Existing law authorizes a party to seek a court order if the opposing counsel does not provide the information within 15 days. Existing law, as enacted by Proposition 115, states that those provisions should be interpreted to provide that no discovery in criminal cases is to occur except as provided by those provisions or as mandated by the Constitution of the United States. This bill would amend the initiative by additionally requiring the prosecuting attorney, in a felony case, to disclose that information to the defendant or their attorney before or at the preliminary hearing, as specified. The bill would authorize a party in a felony case in which the defendant has not waived the right to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days to seek a court order of disclosures if opposing counsel does not provide materials within 3 days. The bill would authorize a court, except as specified, to issue an order compelling discovery directed to prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement agencies that investigated or prepared the case against the defendant, or any other persons or agencies which the prosecuting attorney or investigating agency may have employed to assist them in performing their duties. The bill would require the court, when the court has issued an order compelling discovery, to, upon motion of the defendant, continue the preliminary hearing until all of the court-ordered discovery has been produced to the defendant. If the prosecutor requests a continuance to comply with discovery and the defendant has not waived the right to a timely preliminary hearing, the bill would also authorize the court to extend the time for the preliminary hearing, as specified, if the court finds good cause. By increasing the required discovery by the prosecution in a criminal case beyond that which was enumerated by Proposition 115 or that which is constitutionally required, this bill would amend the provision of Proposition 115. Proposition 115 allows its provisions to be amended by the Legislature only by a 23 vote of the membership of each house. Also, by increasing the duties of discovery on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill Text
- Amended 09/05/23 - Amended Assembly Current pdf September 05, 2023
- Amended 06/29/23 - Amended Assembly pdf June 29, 2023
- Amended 05/18/23 - Amended Senate pdf May 18, 2023
- Introduced 02/13/23 - Introduced pdf February 13, 2023
- SB441 View text html
Action History
-
Ordered to third reading.
-
From inactive file.
-
Notice of intention to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Kalra.
-
Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Bryan.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (September 1).
-
August 23 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 31. Noes 4. Page 1391.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1170.) (May 18).
-
Set for hearing May 18.
-
April 17 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
Set for hearing April 17.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 579.) (March 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing March 28.
-
Referred to Com. on PUB S.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 16.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Bradford · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 9 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Bradford
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 69% | 19% | 0% | 13% |
How each member voted (16)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Not Voting |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Soria, Esmeralda | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Nay |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Nay |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 75% | 25% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (8)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Zbur, Rick Chavez | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Nay |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 31 | 4 | 0 | 5 |
| % of votes cast | 78% | 10% | 0% | 13% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Min | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Not Voting |
| Dodd | — | Not Voting |
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Ashby, Angelique V. | Democratic | Yea |
| Becker, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Blakespear, Catherine S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Cortese, Dave | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Gonzalez, Lena A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Hurtado, Melissa | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Menjivar, Caroline | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Nay |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Susan | Democratic | Yea |
| Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Alvarado-Gil, Marie | Republican | Not Voting |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Not Voting |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Nay |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Nay |
| Niello, Roger W. | Republican | Yea |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 71% | 29% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Ashby, Angelique V. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Nay |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 0% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Ashby, Angelique V. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 441 do?
- Existing law, as enacted by Proposition 115, an initiative statute adopted by the voters at the June 5, 1990, statewide primary election, requires a prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defendant specified items of discovery, including the names and addresses of any persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses, the felony convictions of specified material witnesses, and any exculpatory evidence. Existing law requires a party, before seeking court enforcement of these disclosures, to make an informal request of opposing counsel for the information. Existing law authorizes a party to seek a court order if the opposing counsel does not provide the information within 15 days. Existing law, as enacted by Proposition 115, states that those provisions should be interpreted to provide that no discovery in criminal cases is to occur except as provided by those provisions or as mandated by the Constitution of the United States. This bill would amend the initiative by additionally requiring the prosecuting attorney, in a felony case, to disclose that information to the defendant or their attorney before or at the preliminary hearing, as specified. The bill would authorize a party in a felony case in which the defendant has not waived the right to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days to seek a court order of disclosures if opposing counsel does not provide materials within 3 days. The bill would authorize a court, except as specified, to issue an order compelling discovery directed to prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement agencies that investigated or prepared the case against the defendant, or any other persons or agencies which the prosecuting attorney or investigating agency may have employed to assist them in performing their duties. The bill would require the court, when the court has issued an order compelling discovery, to, upon motion of the defendant, continue the preliminary hearing until all of the court-ordered discovery has been produced to the defendant. If the prosecutor requests a continuance to comply with discovery and the defendant has not waived the right to a timely preliminary hearing, the bill would also authorize the court to extend the time for the preliminary hearing, as specified, if the court finds good cause. By increasing the required discovery by the prosecution in a criminal case beyond that which was enumerated by Proposition 115 or that which is constitutionally required, this bill would amend the provision of Proposition 115. Proposition 115 allows its provisions to be amended by the Legislature only by a 23 vote of the membership of each house. Also, by increasing the duties of discovery on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
- Who sponsors SB 441?
- SB 441 is sponsored by Bradford.
- What is the current status of SB 441?
- This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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 SB 441?
- Track SB 441 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 441
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.
Stay ahead of SB 441
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →