Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs AB 321 to allow judges more time to reclassify "wobbler" offenses
Summary
AB 321, the Better Informed Decisions Act, would let judges reclassify wobbler crimes as felonies or misdemeanors after they have sufficient evidence and restrict subsequent rerequests to changed circumstances. The committee voted 5‑1 to send the bill to the Senate floor.
The Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday advanced Assembly Bill 321, titled the Better Informed Decisions Act, voting 5‑1 to send the measure to the Senate floor.
AB 321, sponsored by the San Francisco County Public Defender's Office and Californians for Safety and Justice and presented by Assemblymember R. Schultz, would allow superior court judges to classify wobbler offenses as felonies or misdemeanors once they have sufficient information, and would require any later request to reclassify a wobbler to demonstrate changed circumstances.
Judge Brett Aldridge, a recently retired California Superior Court judge who handled pretrial felony calendars for three decades, told the committee that the bill fixes an “anachronism” in the penal code that prevents judges from exercising informed discretion until after a jury trial. Aldridge said preliminary hearings often do not present the bulk of discoverable evidence because of changes in courtroom practice following the consolidation of municipal and superior courts, and that permitting judges to revisit classification when fuller evidence is presented would “result in fairer outcomes for all.”
The California District Attorneys Association voiced respectful opposition, saying the bill could allow forum shopping and permit a second judge who did not hear live witness testimony to undercut probable‑cause determinations made at preliminary hearings. DA representatives argued some wobblers — such as vehicular manslaughter, criminal threats and spousal battery — typically involve live testimony at prelims and should not be second‑guessed without a full record.
Proponents said the bill balances those concerns by restricting reclassification after prelims unless there is a change in circumstances, and noted the current rule can lead to overcharging and unnecessary trials. Supporters included public defenders, reentry groups and criminal‑justice reform organizations.
After debate, the committee approved the bill to move to the Senate floor by a vote of 5‑1. The committee record shows the opposition’s concerns will likely be part of any floor debate and that the bill’s change‑of‑circumstances limitation was added to reduce repeated motions and preserve judicial economy.
