S09632Introduced in the Senate
Establishes an assumption of the inadmissibility of evidence of a defendant's creative or artistic expression against such defendant in a criminal proceeding; requires the proffering party to affirmatively prove that the evidence is admissible by clear and convincing evidence.
Introduced by Jamaal Bailey, District 36
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Establishes an assumption of the inadmissibility of evidence of a defendant's creative or artistic expression against such defendant in a criminal proceeding; requires the proffering party to affirmatively prove that the evidence is admissible by clear and convincing evidence.
Where it stands
referred to codes
May 18, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
SenateStage: Senate Floor Vote - Final Passage · May 18, 2026
38
Yes
22
No
3
Absent or Not Voting
63 senators recorded in this Senate vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each senator voted
| Senator | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Anthony Palumbo | 1 | No |
| Mario Mattera | 2 | No |
| Dean Murray | 3 | No |
| Monica Martinez | 4 | No |
| Steven Rhoads | 5 | No |
| Siela Bynoe | 6 | Yes |
| Jack Martins | 7 | No |
| Alexis Weik | 8 | No |
| Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick | 9 | No |
| James Sanders | 10 | Absent |
Bill history
REFERRED TO CODES
1ST REPORT CAL.803
2ND REPORT CAL.
ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
PASSED SENATE
DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
referred to codes
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.