Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves AB 321 to let judges reclassify ‘wobbler’ charges when new evidence emerges; DAs voice procedural concerns
Summary
AB 321, the ‘Better Informed Decisions Act,’ was approved by the committee to go to the Senate floor. Supporters said the bill allows judges to reclassify wobbler offenses as felonies or misdemeanors when the court has sufficient information; prosecutors warned it could permit forum-shopping and undercut preliminary-hearing determinations.
The Senate Public Safety Committee on June 10 voted to send Assembly Bill 321, the Better Informed Decisions Act, to the Senate floor after debate on courtroom procedure and prosecutorial discretion.
Assemblymember Schultz, presenting the bill, said AB 321 would permit judges to classify wobbler offenses as felonies or misdemeanors when they have sufficient information before trial and would limit repeated motions to reclassify unless changed circumstances arise. He said the change would reduce overcharging, align charges with available evidence and save court resources.
Retired Superior Court Judge Brett Aldridge, testifying in support, described the measure as a “procedural fix” to an anachronistic rule that often prevents judges from exercising informed discretion after preliminary hearings. Aldridge said preliminaries now frequently present only limited hearsay testimony and that much evidence is not available until trial preparation, creating wasteful felony trials for cases that later warrant misdemeanor disposition.
The California District Attorneys Association’s Michelle Hanafi testified in respectful opposition, saying AB 321 risks forum-shopping and allows a judge who did not hear live witness testimony at a preliminary hearing to undercut the probable-cause determination made by the judge who did. Hanafi listed offense types (for example, vehicular manslaughter, criminal threats, spousal battery) where live testimony is typically required and said the bill could weaken that procedural foundation.
Assemblymember Schultz noted a committee-floor compromise: once a judge rules on a reduction motion at the preliminary hearing, the defendant may only renew that motion later on a showing of changed circumstances. Supporters said this limits frivolous repeat requests and balances judicial review with system efficiency.
The committee voted to pass AB 321 to the Senate floor. The vote was recorded with one dissenting vote from a committee member who cited the procedural concerns raised by prosecutors.
