Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary Bill Number: 6283 SB Title: Death penalty elimination Estimated Cash Receipts Agency Name 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 GF- State Total GF- State Total GF- State Total Office of Attorney General Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion." Total $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Expenditures Agency Name 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total Administrative Office Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. of the Courts Office of Public Fiscal note not available Defense Office of Attorney Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. General Caseload Forecast .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 Council Department of Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. Corrections Total 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 Local Gov. Courts * Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion. Local Gov. Other ** Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion. Local Gov. Total Estimated Capital Budget Impact NONE Prepared by: Adam Aaseby, OFM Phone: Date Published: 360-902-0539 Final 1/27/2012 * See Office of the Administrator for the Courts judicial fiscal note ** See local government fiscal note FNPID 31143 : FNS029 Multi Agency rollup Judicial Impact Fiscal Note Bill Number: 6283 SB Title: Death penalty elimination Agency: 055-Admin Office of the Courts Part I: Estimates No Fiscal Impact Estimated Cash Receipts to: Account FY 2012 FY 2013 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 Counties Cities Total $ Estimated Expenditures from: Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion. The revenue and expenditure estimates on this page represent the most likely fiscal impact. Responsibility for expenditures may be subject to the provisions of RCW 43.135.060. Check applicable boxes and follow corresponding instructions: If fiscal impact is greater than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete entire fiscal note form X Parts I-V. If fiscal impact is less than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete this page only (Part I). Capital budget impact, complete Part IV. Contact Phone: Date: 01/23/2012 Agency Preparation: Gil Austin Phone: 360-705-5271 Date: 01/24/2012 Agency Approval: Dirk Marler Phone: 360-705-5211 Date: 01/24/2012 OFM Review: David Dula Phone: (360) 902-0543 Date: 01/25/2012 Request # -1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 1 Bill # 6283 SB FNS061 Judicial Impact Fiscal Note Part II: Narrative Explanation II. A - Brief Description Of What The Measure Does That Has Fiscal Impact on the Courts Section 1 Amends RCW 10.95.030 so that a person convicted of aggravated first degree murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole. Section 2 Repeals provisions of RCW 10.95 relating to court proceedings concerning a death sentence. II. B - Cash Receipts Impact II. C - Expenditures There is no data available to estimate the fiscal impact of this bill. Since these cases are before the supreme, appellate and superior courts over a period of years and before different justices and judges there is no way, without engaging in a longer term study, to determine costs for these cases. The cost data provided below is to help inform readers on the typical costs involved. However, it is assumed the fiscal impact would represent a cost savings for the Supreme Court from not reviewing death penalty cases and Superior Courts savings from not trying death penalty cases. It is possible that the Courts of Appeal could see a slight increase in appeals. Superior Courts would achieve savings from trying aggravated murder in the first degree cases where the death penalty was not the sentence upon a conviction. A number of procedures and activities in death penalty cases add to the cost of these cases and many of these procedures and costs are discussed in the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) “Final Report of the Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense,” published in December 2006. In cases where the death penalty is a potential sentence, a Supreme Court rule requires the appointment of two attorneys, with at least one attorney qualified to try capital cases. These cases require a “mitigation investigation,” which is information about the defendant’s past a jury may consider in deciding whether the sentence should be death or life without the possibility of parole. The mitigation information is also reviewed by the prosecutor in determining whether to file a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The cost of mitigation investigations can be considerable. A recent investigation from Spokane County Superior Court has the cost of a single investigation and report at $19,479. Compared to other felony cases in Superior Court, more time is spent in capital cases on complex pre-trial motions, legal challenges and jury selection. Jury selection is more complex with many more jurors summoned than in a typical jury trial. Also, the process of selecting a jury is much more involved, with jurors having to provide additional written material and the court and attorneys reviewing these juror questionnaires. The WSBA report states that jury selection can “take as long as 30 days in a capital case.” In other cases jury selection takes a day, or sometimes two days. Should a jury find a defendant guilty of aggravated murder in the first degree then the same jury would convene for a “penalty phase.” In the penalty phase the jury decides whether the sentence should be death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This phase can last from a few days to longer than a week. The WSBA report cites an Administrative Office of the Courts analysis that concludes that should a capital case last between 20 to 30 days longer than a typical felony case, “then the extra cost in terms of trial court operation would be $46,640 to $69,960.” It is important to note that not all Superior Courts incur the increase in costs for capital cases to the same extent. Larger counties tend to have separate departments of assigned counsel that are not part of the court operation, who would incur the costs of the additional attorney costs and perhaps the costs of the mitigation investigation. This may not be the case in smaller counties where the Superior Court budget includes the cost of defense attorneys, mitigation investigations and other expert costs. As with Superior Courts, the Supreme Court would achieve savings by not hearing appeals of capital cases. In the Supreme Court an appeal of a capital case is mandatory for a review of the sentence and an appeal of the judgment. These cases by RCW require the Supreme Court to review specific issues concerning whether sufficient evidence existed to justify the jury’s determination of insufficient mitigating circumstances; whether the sentence was a product of passion or prejudice; whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases considering both the crime and the defendant; and whether the defendant an intellectual disability. In the Supreme Court, additional procedures are required by Supreme Court rule. Two attorneys must be appointed to represent the defendant with one of these attorneys from the death penalty qualified list; every hearing must be transcribed and a proportionality Request # -1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 2 Bill # 6283 SB FNS061 Judicial Impact Fiscal Note analysis must be made; and the time for argument in capital cases is three times longer than in other cases. If there is a Supreme Court decision that is adverse to the defendant, then within one year from that decision a Personal Restraint Petition (PRP) may be filed by the defendant in the Supreme Court that can raise issues not previously considered at the appellate or trial proceedings. These PRP proceedings also require that two attorneys be appointed, with at least one being an attorney qualified from the death penalty qualified list, the briefing to the court is increased, experts and investigators may be appointed and the hearing must be transcribed. The amount of additional time that a Justice and staff assigned a capital case spends on such a case is considerably more than with other case assignments. It is estimated that currently the Supreme Court Clerk spends 10 to 15% of his time on capital cases while another member of the Clerk’s Office staff spends 20% of her time. The Courts of Appeal might experience an increase in the number of appeals of sentences in aggravated first degree murder cases as the only possible sentence under this bill would be life imprisonment without possibility of release or parole. It is not possible to quantify this increase now, but it would be a small number of appeals. According to information provided by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, in FY 10 there were 9 Aggravated Murder sentences, with 8 resulting in a Life Without Parole sentence and 1 resulting in a Death sentence, while in 2008 there were 8 convictions for aggravated murder in the first degree. This compares to 1,441 criminal appeals filed in all three divisions of the Courts of Appeal in 2009. Part III: Expenditure Detail Part IV: Capital Budget Impact Request # -1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 3 Bill # 6283 SB FNS061 Judicial Impact Fiscal Note Individual State Agency Fiscal Note Bill Number: 6283 SB Title: Death penalty elimination Agency: 100-Office of Attorney General Part I: Estimates No Fiscal Impact Estimated Cash Receipts to: Non-zero but indeterminate cost.