An act to amend Section 273.5 of the Penal Code, relating to crimes.
AB 2097 would amend Penal Code Section 273.5, California’s domestic violence corporal injury statute, to expressly include strangulation-related conduct as a felony offense. In addition to the existing prohibition on willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, the bill would make it a crime to knowingly impede a victim’s normal breathing or blood flow by applying pressure to the throat, neck, or chest, or by obstructing the nose or mouth. The bill applies to specified intimate or family relationships already covered by Section 273.5, including spouses, former spouses, cohabitants, dating or engaged partners, and the other parent of the offender’s child.
The bill would assign the same punishment range already used for Section 273.5 violations: two, three, or four years in state prison, up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $6,000, or both imprisonment and a fine. It also preserves the statute’s existing provisions on repeat-offender sentencing enhancements, probation conditions, restitution, domestic violence shelter payments, and restraining-order considerations. The measure states that no state reimbursement is required for local agencies or school districts because any added costs would arise from creating or changing a crime.
In terms of state law impact, AB 2097 would broaden the definition of conduct covered by California’s domestic violence injury statute to explicitly capture strangulation and suffocation-type assaults, rather than relying only on the general “traumatic condition” language. This would give prosecutors a clearer statutory basis to charge strangulation in domestic violence cases and would likely affect charging decisions, plea negotiations, sentencing, and protective-order proceedings in cases involving intimate partner violence.
The available legislative context suggests little recorded debate or opposition at this stage. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, and the bill’s last action was procedural: it was set for a second hearing, but the hearing was canceled at the request of the author. That indicates the measure had not yet advanced through a substantive committee vote in the available record.
Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a domestic violence enforcement measure, with the main policy goal of making strangulation explicitly punishable under existing felony domestic violence law. The likely support base would include domestic violence advocates and law enforcement stakeholders seeking clearer tools for prosecution, while any contention would likely center on whether the new language is necessary given existing assault and corporal injury statutes, and on the practical effects of creating an additional express crime classification.
AB 2097 would amend Penal Code Section 273.5 to add an express strangulation/suffocation offense within the domestic violence corporal injury statute. It would expand criminal liability to cover knowingly impeding breathing or blood flow by pressure on the throat, neck, or chest, or by obstructing the nose or mouth, for victims already protected under Section 273.5. The bill would not change the penalty range, but it would clarify and broaden the conduct covered by the statute, affecting prosecution, sentencing, probation, restitution, and protective-order practices in domestic violence cases. It also declares that no reimbursement is required for local agencies because any costs stem from the creation or change of a crime.
The bill’s apparent sentiment is generally supportive and public-safety oriented, with the text reflecting a focus on domestic violence victim protection and clearer criminal accountability for strangulation. However, the provided record contains no committee testimony, recorded votes, or formal opposition statements, so the level of support or concern cannot be measured from discussion history. The only procedural note is that the author requested cancellation of the second hearing, which suggests the measure did not advance far enough in the available record to generate a detailed public debate.
Because there are no transcripts or votes, no specific stakeholder objections are documented in the provided materials. The most likely point of contention, based on the bill text, is whether explicitly creating a separate strangulation offense is necessary when existing law already covers corporal injury and strangulation-related traumatic conditions. Another possible issue is the bill’s creation of a new crime for local-government cost purposes, although the measure attempts to avoid reimbursement obligations by stating that no reimbursement is required. Any debate would likely involve domestic violence advocates, prosecutors, defense interests, and fiscal/local-government stakeholders.