Romeo and Juliet: California AB 379 and the Complexity of Close-In-Age Exemptions

California Assembly Bill 379, also known as the Survivor Support and Demand Reduction Act, was chaptered on July 30, 2025, ensuring it will go into effect by 2026. AB 379, introduced in February of this year, was amended from a burglary bill to a prostitution bill. Following the amendment, the bill became a way to increase the punishment applicable to solicitors and perpetrators of engaging in sexual relations with 16 and 17-year-olds, alongside other provisions related to prostitution, human trafficking, and statutory rape.  

The bill managed to reignite the longstanding debate regarding California’s lack of Romeo and Juliet laws, or “statutory rape laws [containing] exceptions for people who are close in age to [a] minor.” The bill had been a large point of contention within California politics, with Democrats and Republicans taking opposing stances: Republicans pushed for the bills passing, while Democrats opposed the bill and pressed to amend it. 

Close-in-Age Exemptions

Over the years, there have been debates regarding California’s lack of Romeo and Juliet laws, or close-in-age exemption laws, policies primarily designed to prevent consensual relationships between minors and young adults close in age from being prosecuted for serious sex crimes. Unlike many other states, California has historically treated all sexual acts with a minor as a criminal act regardless of the age gap between the parties involved. 

The strict 18-year-old age cutoff has existed since 1920, according to the Children & Youth in History Organization. Without much leniency, one of the few defenses is the Reasonable Mistake of Age defense often listed by California state law firms, a variation of the Mistake of Fact defense found in the Model Penal Code allowing for a defense based on the defendant’s “ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law.” The Reasonable Mistake of Age defense is used when the party accused of a sex crime involving a minor claims to have reasonably assumed that the minor in question was at least 18 years of age. 

With Assembly Bill 379 recently passing through the state legislature, there has been a renewed interest in the topic. The bill seeks to strengthen and clarify penalties related to sexual conduct with minors, with proponents of the bill arguing that it would create better protections for minors. 

However, maintaining and increasing California’s strict approach to criminalizing sexual activity with minors also garnered heavy backlash from opponents. The issue became a partisan issue, with California Democrats and Republicans arguing on opposing sides.  

The Republican Side

California Republicans strongly supported AB 379, with their main argument focusing on the bill’s ability to protect minors from sexual exploitation. The amplification of California’s already strict age of consent laws (CA Penal Code § 261.5) were seen as a way to further deter adult predators from engaging in inappropriate acts with minors. 

Following opposition, the partisan issue was used to lodge criticisms at Democrats for their handling of sex-trafficking issues. In a statement issued by James Gallagher, the California Republican politician framed the issue as one of basic decency, equating opposition to the bill to a leniency for predators targeting minors. 

The Democrat Side

Opponents of AB 379, mainly made up of California Democrats, focused on the complications that arose from further criminalizing a sector of law that could involve consensual relationships between minors and adults with a small age gap. 

The issue at the forefront was that of possibly imposing lifelong consequences for individuals engaged in relationships that other states have exemptions for. The lack of leniency for these situations can criminalize adolescent behavior, creating the possibility of harsh penalties such as felony charges and mandatory sex offender registration for acts that were consensual and close in age. 

Additionally, a provision under AB 379 would make it a “misdemeanor for any person to loiter in any public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex,” which according to the LA Times created a concern for Democrats who worried about the provision possibly being used to "target minorities and the poor.” Following the previous concerns, the bill was edited to only allow misdemeanor charges for defendants within three years of the victim’s age.

Conclusion

Ultimately, AB 379 underscores the tension between legal punishment and public policy. The debates around the bill prior to its passing displayed the need for nuanced approaches to legislation, bringing the issue of close-in-age exemptions to the table. In choosing to protect minors from any type of adult sexual activity through strict criminalization, valid arguments came up regarding who would really be affected by the passing of this legislation. The bill will go into effect in 2026, creating one more step in the current system’s attempt to balance protection and legal fairness.

Image Source: The Sacramento Observer