Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reckless Burning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to raise reckless‑burning conduct to straight felony put on call after mixed testimony
Summary
AB 336 would make serious reckless-burning incidents (e.g., fires caused by reckless acts that produce great bodily injury or large-scale destruction) a straight felony rather than a wobbler; the committee heard survivor and law‑enforcement support and defender opposition and left the measure on call for further consideration.
Assemblymember Wallace presented AB 336, the Felony Reckless Burning Act, to tighten penalties for reckless-burning conduct that results in major harm—moving certain high-harm reckless-burning cases to straight felonies rather than wobblers. Wallace cited recent catastrophic fires and argued felony-level penalties better align accountability with harm when reckless conduct results in fatalities, mass property loss, or large impacted areas.
Supporters included the California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association, and several sheriff and police groups, which said the measure fills a gap between reckless-burning misdemeanors and arson. Kim Stone, for the District Attorneys Association, said the bill “increases the penalties for reckless burning from a wobbler to a straight felony” in narrowly defined circumstances and that prosecutors and chiefs support the change.
Opposition testimony came from wildfire survivors and public-defender and criminal-justice‑reform groups. Speakers urged parity with corporate liability and argued the bill could increase incarceration for individuals who are not the principal cause of large wildfires—raising fairness concerns. Public defenders emphasized mental-health prevalence among many charged with burning offenses and urged retaining prosecutorial discretion via wobblers to tailor outcomes.
Committee members discussed penalty parity, corporate accountability, juvenile mental-health issues, and the potential fiscal effects of expanded felony sentences. The committee did not take a final recorded passage during the hearing; the chair placed the measure on call for further consideration, indicating additional negotiation or clarification would be required before a final committee vote.
