Crimes: prostitution: evidence.
Summary
Existing law requires that in any of specified circumstances, including, but not limited to, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, or sodomy, if evidence of sexual conduct of the complaining witness is offered to attack the credibility of the complaining witness, specified procedures be followed. Existing law includes, among those procedures, a requirement that a written motion be made by the defendant to the court and prosecutor stating that the defense has an offer of proof of the relevancy of evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness proposed to be presented and its relevancy in attacking the credibility of the complaining witness. Existing law requires the written motion to be accompanied by an affidavit, filed and sealed, in which the offer of proof is stated. Existing law requires if the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the court to order a hearing out of the presence of the jury, if any, and at the hearing allow the questioning of the complaining witness regarding the offer of proof made by the defendant. Existing law permits at the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that evidence proposed to be offered by the defendant regarding the sexual conduct of the complaining witness is relevant and is not found inadmissible, the court to make an order stating what evidence may be introduced by the defendant, and the nature of the questions to be permitted. Existing law states that the defendant may then offer that specified evidence pursuant to the order of the court. This bill would require that in any prosecution for committing an act of disorderly conduct or for loitering in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution, if the possession of one or more condoms is to be introduced as evidence in support of the commission of the crime, specified procedures be followed that are similar to existing law, except that the written motion would be made by the prosecutor to the court and to the defendant stating that the prosecution has an offer of proof of the relevancy of the possession by the defendant of one or more condoms. The bill would permit, at the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that evidence proposed to be offered by the prosecutor regarding the possession of condoms is relevant and is not inadmissible, the court to make an order stating what evidence may be introduced by the prosecutor. The bill would then permit the prosecutor to offer that specified evidence pursuant to the order of the court.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Aug 2014
Assembly Passage
May 2013
Senate Passage
Aug 2014
Signed into Law
Sep 2014
Introduced Feb 13, 2013
Signed Sep 18, 2014
Floor votes · Assembly May 31, 2013
How they voted
35–27
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 64
May 31, 2013
D
Democratic43
81% Yea
R
Republican21
95% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
25
Key actions
10
Committee
11
Sep 18, 2014
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 27, 2014
Lower · Passed
In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.
lower
Aug 14, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (August 14).
upper
Aug 4, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jul 1, 2014
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 25, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 24).
upper
Jun 19, 2013
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 13, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
May 31, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (35-27-2)
assembly
May 7, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (April 23).
lower
Mar 19, 2013
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Feb 28, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 14, 2013
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 16.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
TA
Tom Ammiano
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 336
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 336. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline