Miller v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 01 November 1999 |
Docket Number | No. S073888.,S073888. |
Citation | 21 Cal.4th 883,89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834,986 P.2d 170 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | Ellen MILLER, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Joaquin County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. |
Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan, Sacramento, Samuel T. McAdam; Riegels Campos & Kenyon and Charity Kenyon, Sacramento, for Petitioner. Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, John E. Carne, Kathy M. Banke, David E. Durant, Oakland, and Helen N.E. Posnansky, for California Newspaper Publishers Association, California First Amendment Coalition, The Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter, The Copley Press, Inc., Freedom Communications, Knight Ridder, McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., the Ontario Bulletin, the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Bernardino Sun, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and The Times Mirror Company as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Johanson & Robinson, Sacramento, and Steve H. Johanson, for Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., A.H. Belo Corporation and Channel 58, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson and David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Edmund D. McMurray, Margaret Venturi and Susan J. Orton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney (Los Angeles), George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Brentford J. Ferreira, Deputy District Attorney, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
In 1990 the voters of this state enacted a constitutional amendment as part of Proposition 115 affirming that in criminal cases the People of the State of California have "the right to due process of law" (Cal. Const., art. I, § 29).1 In the present case, we consider whether the assertion of that state constitutional right by a district attorney can serve as a justification for holding a newsperson in contempt for refusing to surrender unpublished information, in spite of the newsperson's immunity from contempt for such refusal expressly provided in article I, section 2, subdivision (b) (hereinafter article I, section 2(b)), and reaffirmed in article I, section 28, subdivision (d) (hereinafter article I, section 28(d)). We conclude that a newsperson cannot be held in contempt under these circumstances. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The pertinent facts of this case are not in dispute and were largely set forth in SCI-Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 654, 657-659, 62 Cal. Rptr.2d 868:
fns. and italics omitted.)
The stay was extended when KOVR indicated its intention to petition the Court of Appeal for an extraordinary writ setting aside the superior court's ruling. That petition was filed in that court on August 14, 1996. In SCI-Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 654, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 868, the Court of Appeal concluded the petition was premature as there had been no adjudication of contempt. The court therefore did not reach the merits of the dispute but issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order and "to enter a new order giving petitioners the opportunity to choose to be held in contempt or to disclose the disputed materials." (Id., at pp. 667-668, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 868.) The previously issued stay was dissolved. (Id., at p. 668, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 868.)
At the ensuing hearing, the superior court ordered petitioner, KOVR's news director, Ellen Miller, to turn over to the prosecution the unedited videotape. Petitioner refused to do so and was adjudged in contempt. The court ordered petitioner jailed until the tape was produced or the criminal proceedings concluded. She was also ordered to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the contempt proceedings. However, the court stayed its order to allow filing of a petition for extraordinary relief in the Court of Appeal. Petitioner filed such a petition for "a writ of habeas corpus and/or review," which the court treated as a writ of prohibition. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ of prohibition and stayed the judgment of contempt.
The Court of Appeal, relying on article I, section 29, giving "the people of the State of California ... the right to due process of law," and on our decision in Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 268 Cal.Rptr. 753, 789 P.2d 934 (Delaney), concluded that a journalist's immunity from contempt is not absolute when the prosecution makes a showing of need for information the journalist possesses. Purportedly following our Delaney decision, the court employed a balancing test, weighing the relative importance of the prosecution's interest in uncovering the information and the news organization's interest in keeping it concealed. The court determined that the People had shown the potential importance of the unpublished portions of the interview for the criminal trial against DeSoto and the lack of alternative sources. The court also determined that the concealment of the information was of relatively less importance to the news organization, because it was not protecting a confidential source. The court accordingly upheld the trial court's contempt order, denied the writ of prohibition, and lifted the stay.
We granted review and further stayed enforcement of the contempt order.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northwest Energetic Serv. V. Franchise Tax
...Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 952, 960-961, 220 Cal.Rptr. 306; see also Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883, 895-896, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 986 P.2d 170.) Instructive on the exclusivity of section 19717 is Agnew v. State Bd. of Equalization (2005) 134 Cal......
-
People v. Ault
...to due process of law must be the exact equivalent to a criminal defendant's right to due process." (Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883, 896, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 986 P.2d 170 [People's state constitutional right to due process does not "trump" provisions of state Constitution's ......
-
Homeowners Assn. v. De Anza
... ... No. H020036 ... Court of Appeal, Sixth District ... December 21, 2001 ... [114 Cal.Rptr.2d 711] ... [94 ... On appeal defendants raise the following arguments: ... 1) The superior court's jurisdiction is preempted by the Public Utilities Commission; ... 94 Cal.App.4th 895 ... parks would prevail over the more general provisions of the Unruh Act."]; accord, Miller v. Superior ... 94 Cal.App.4th 912 ... Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883, 895, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, ... ...
-
Clouse ex rel. Clouse v. State
...alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates.'" Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 883, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 986 P.2d 170, 177 (1999) (quoting San Francisco Taxpayers Ass'n v. Board of Supervisors, 2 Cal.4th 571, 7 Cal. Rptr.2d 245, 828......
-
Table of cases
...Cal. Rptr. 279, §9:190 Miller v. Silver (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 652, 226 Cal. Rptr. 479, §§17:60, 17:100 Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 883, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834, §10:170 Miller v. Superior Court (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 376, 214 Cal. Rptr. 125, §9:180 Miller, People v . (1990) ......
-
Privileges and public policy exclusions
...information. The prosecution’s right to due process cannot overcome the protection of the shield law. Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 883, 897, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834. Constitutional Privilege. In a civil action, journalists have a qualified privilege arising from constitutional g......
-
Honoring the record service of justice Stanley Mosk, California Supreme Court (1964-present).
...be deprived of the custody of their children on the basis of stereotypes about their fitness as parents. Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883, holding that journalists cannot be jailed for contempt of court for refusing to give prosecutors unpublished Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1......