Habeas corpus: gender-based stereotypes.
Summary
Existing law authorizes every person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of that imprisonment or restraint. Existing law also authorizes a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis that competent and substantial expert testimony relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was not presented to the trier of fact at the trial court proceedings and is of such substance that, had the competent and substantial expert testimony been presented, there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of conviction or sentence, that the result of the proceedings would have been different. This bill would additionally authorize a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis that evidence or argument likely to trigger gender-based stereotypes was admitted or relied upon by the prosecution at trial in a manner that created a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if such evidence was not admitted or argument offered. The bill would provide that evidence or argument likely to trigger gender-based stereotypes includes, but is not limited to, information concerning a defendant's sexual activity, sexual orientation, sexual partners, reproductive choices, gender presentation, clothing, or romantic relationships, when offered in a matter that may invoke gender-based stereotypes. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. Because this bill may result in the exclusion of evidence that would otherwise be admissible in a criminal proceeding, the bill would require a 23 vote of the Legislature.
Bill status
in committee
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2026
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 17, 2026
Last action May 14, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 2 comparisons
What changed between versions
04/15/26 - Amended Assembly
→
AB2014
·
1 edit
MINOR
This diff reflects a formatting and presentation change from a traditional legislative document layout (with line numbers, page headers, and column formatting) to a clean web-published format. The substantive content of AB 2014 is unchanged between these two versions.
TECHNICAL
The bill text was reformatted from a traditional legislative document with line numbers, page breaks, and dual-column layout into a plain web publication format. No policy language was added, removed, or altered.
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
10
Key actions
4
Committee
7
Amendments
1
May 14, 2026
Lower · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
lower
May 13, 2026
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 22, 2026
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (April 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 16, 2026
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Apr 15, 2026
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 9, 2026
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Mar 2, 2026
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 18, 2026
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Sade Elhawary
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2014
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2014. 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