A California Bill Would Let Survivors Point To Their Abuse In Court. Here Is What It Would Actually Do

Reviewed by Heard & Believed · Updated 2026-07-28

A new California bill, AB 910, would let survivors of trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence cite their abuse as a legal defense if they are charged with a violent crime, and let some already convicted survivors ask a judge to undo it. It is not law yet, but here is what it would mean if it passes.

What AB 910 Would Actually Change

California lawmakers are considering a bill, AB 910, that would let survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence point to that abuse as a legal defense if they are later charged with a violent crime. Most murder charges would be excluded, but the bill covers a wide range of other violent offenses where a survivor's actions were connected to coercion or abuse they experienced.

The bill also reaches backward. Survivors already convicted of a qualifying offense could petition a judge to vacate the conviction. If a judge grants that request, the arrest and conviction would be treated as though they never happened, the case file would be sealed and destroyed, and any remaining fines or restitution tied to the case would be waived.

Why This Idea Keeps Coming Back

This is not the first time California lawmakers have tried something like this. Similar proposals have cleared earlier public safety committees for three consecutive years, only to be stopped later in closed-door budget review sessions, a pattern that reflects both real support for the idea and real resistance to it moving forward.

The bill's author has described it as a second chance built on dignity rather than leniency, arguing that a survivor's whole life should not become the price tag for surviving someone else's abuse. Opponents, including some prosecutors' groups, worry it could let people avoid accountability for genuinely violent acts and strain courts with a wave of new petitions.

The Case For It, In Plain Terms

Advocacy groups supporting the bill point to a pattern that shows up again and again in trafficking and abuse cases: a survivor's coerced or trauma-driven actions, sometimes taken under direct threat, become the very thing later used to charge or convict them. A criminal record tied to that history can then block housing, employment, and even future access to support services, compounding the original harm years after it happened.

One advocacy director involved in the bill argued that even a single person granted relief under it would justify the effort, framing the law less as leniency and more as closing a gap where the legal system currently treats a survivor's trauma response as simple criminality.

What This Means If It Touches Your Own Story

If you have ever been charged or convicted of something connected to abuse you survived, it is worth saying clearly: AB 910 is not law yet, and even if it passes, its protections would apply going forward under specific legal criteria, not automatically to every past case. Nothing about this bill changes what happened, or what you are legally entitled to today, while it remains pending.

If a past charge in your history connects to abuse or coercion, a victim advocate or an attorney familiar with trauma-informed defense law can help you understand what options already exist right now, separate from whatever happens with this bill. You do not need to wait for a new law to ask that question.

What AB 910 Would And Would Not Do

Bills like this get simplified fast once they hit social media. Here is what the actual text would and would not change.

1. It would create a defense, not a guarantee: Survivors could raise their abuse as a defense in qualifying violent crime cases. A judge or jury would still decide the outcome.
2. It would let some past convictions be vacated: Survivors already convicted could petition a judge, who would decide whether to grant relief case by case.
3. It excludes most murder charges: The defense would not apply to the large majority of murder cases under the bill as written.
4. It would seal and destroy qualifying case files: If a judge vacates a conviction, the arrest and case record would be sealed and destroyed, not just marked resolved.
5. It is not currently law: The bill is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee and has stalled in past years at this same stage.
6. It has real, organized opposition: Prosecutors' associations have publicly opposed the bill over accountability and court capacity concerns.

You might also read

• When A Conviction Gets Overturned: Coping When A Case Does Not Stay Closed
• Waiting for Resolution: How to Care for Yourself During a Long Legal Journey
• 53 Trafficking Survivors Were Just Identified During The World Cup. Here Is What Happens Next For Them