Could a Survivor's Abuse History Become a Legal Defense? California's AB 910, Explained

Reviewed by Survivor Rights Center · Updated 2026-07-28

What AB 910 actually changes

Assembly Bill 910 would amend several sections of the California Penal Code that already let judges consider a defendant's history of trafficking, domestic violence, or sexual abuse at sentencing. The bill would extend that same consideration earlier in the process, allowing a person charged with a violent crime to argue that the offense was connected to abuse they survived, as part of building their defense rather than only as a factor raised after conviction.

The bill carves out an exception for most murder charges, so it is narrower than a blanket shield against violent-crime liability. Supporters describe it as recognizing that some survivors end up charged with violence directed at, or connected to, the person who abused them, and that current law does not always give a court a clear way to weigh that context before it renders a verdict.

The retroactive piece: vacating past convictions

AB 910 also reaches backward. Someone already convicted of a qualifying offense could file a petition asking a judge to vacate that conviction. If a judge grants the petition, the arrest and conviction would be treated as though they never occurred, the case file would be sealed and eventually destroyed, and any outstanding fines or restitution tied to that case would be waived.

That retroactive relief is aimed at survivors whose criminal record already reflects an act connected to their own victimization, on the theory that the record itself, not just the original sentence, is a lasting consequence that can block housing, jobs, or custody outcomes long after a case is closed.

A fourth attempt, and where it has died before

This is the fourth consecutive year a version of this measure has been introduced in the California Legislature. In each prior year, a public safety committee approved the bill before it reached the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it was set aside in closed session without a public vote, according to reporting on the bill's history.

This year's version cleared the Assembly floor by a 71-2 vote in January 2026 and has since moved through the Senate Public Safety Committee before being re-referred to Appropriations, where a hearing is calendared for early August 2026. That committee is the same point where earlier versions stalled, which advocates and opponents both point to as the bill's real test.

Who supports it, who doesn't, and why

Supporters include the American Civil Liberties Union's California affiliate and a public defender's office, alongside advocacy groups that work directly with trafficking survivors. Their core argument is that survivors should not spend years, or the rest of their lives, carrying the legal consequences of conduct that was itself a product of the abuse they endured.

Opposition has come primarily from law enforcement groups and a statewide prosecutors' association, whose position is that a formal abuse-based defense to violent charges risks letting real accountability for a violent act slip away, regardless of what led to it. That tension, between individualized context for survivors and a fixed standard of accountability for violent conduct, is the central disagreement the Legislature has revisited each year the bill has come up.

What to Know Before AB 910's Next Vote

The bill is still moving through the Legislature, not yet law. Here is what matters most about how it would work if it passes.

1. Covers three categories of abuse: The defense applies to survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual assault, not abuse generally.
2. Most murder charges are excluded: The bill is written to exclude most murder charges from the defense, narrowing its reach compared to a blanket exception.
3. It is a defense, not an automatic dismissal: Raising the abuse history is part of building a defense; a court still decides the outcome, it does not require acquittal.
4. Past convictions get a petition process, not automatic relief: Someone convicted before the bill's passage would have to file a petition and get a judge's approval to vacate the conviction.
5. Sealed and destroyed, not just expunged: A granted petition results in the record being sealed and eventually destroyed, beyond a standard expungement that leaves a record on file.
6. Appropriations is the bill's real hurdle: The bill has cleared public safety review in past years only to stall in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it is now headed again.

Frequently asked questions

Related