Yoshisato v. Superior Court, S022929

• Citation: 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 102,2 Cal.4th 978,831 P.2d 327
• Decision Date: 25 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. S022929,S022929
• Parties: , 831 P.2d 327 Wayne Ichija YOSHISATO, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent. The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)

Page 102

9 Cal.Rptr.2d 102

2 Cal.4th 978, 831 P.2d 327

Wayne Ichija YOSHISATO, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

No. S022929.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

June 25, 1992.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1992.

Ronald Y. Butler, Public Defender, Carl C. Holmes, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Thomas Havlena and Kevin J. Phillips, Deputy Public Defenders, for petitioner.

Fern M. Laethem, State Public Defender, Albert W. Brodie and Mary K. McComb, Deputy State Public Defenders, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Michael R. Capizzi, Dist. Atty., Maurice L. Evans, Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., John D. Conley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Douglas Woodsmall, Gregg L. Prickett and Kathleen M. Harper, Deputy Dist. Attys., for real party in interest.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. Foster and Frederick R. Millar, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., as amici curiae on behalf of real party in interest.

LUCAS, Chief Justice.

In the June 1990 Primary Election, the voters approved two measures (Propositions 114 and 115), both of which amended Penal Code section 190.2 (hereafter section 190.2). Proposition 114 received more votes than Proposition 115, and is clearly operative. We granted review to decide whether, and to what extent, the amendments made to section 190.2 by Proposition 115 should be given effect. (See Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (b).) We conclude that all of the substantive amendments made to section 190.2 by Proposition 115 are effective.

I. Facts and Procedure

Petitioner stands charged with first degree murder. The information alleges as a special circumstance--mandating a sentence of death or life in prison without possibility of parole if found true--that the murder was committed while petitioner was engaged in "rape with a foreign instrument." (See § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(xi).)

Petitioner demurred to the allegation on the ground that rape with a foreign instrument--a new special circumstance added by Proposition 115--is not a valid special circumstance because Proposition 114 reenacted former section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), without adding that special circumstance. The trial court overruled the demurrer, but the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that our opinion in Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 744, 274 Cal.Rptr. 787, 799 P.2d 1220 (hereafter Taxpayers ), precluded Proposition 115's amendments to section 190.2 from taking effect.

II. The Propositions

A. Proposition 114

In 1989, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed an omnibus bill designed to overhaul the classification and treatment of peace officers. The legislation, Senate Bill No. 353 (1989-1990) Reg.Sess.) (Stats.1989, ch. 1165), amended, repealed, and added 52 sections of 13 different codes, and comprised over 46 pages of text. Section 16 of the legislation proposed to amend the "peace officer special circumstance" provision of the 1978 Death Penalty Initiative, but section 51 of the legislation provided that section 16 "shall become effective only when submitted to and approved by the voters, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution." ¹ Thereafter the "peace officer special circumstance" amendment of Senate Bill No. 353 was presented to the voters at the next general election as Proposition 114.

The "Official Title and Summary" of Proposition 114 read as follows: "MURDER OF A PEACE OFFICER. CRIMINAL PENALTIES. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. PEACE OFFICER DEFINITION. LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE AMENDMENT. The Briggs Death Penalty Initiative Act defined 'peace officer' for cases where a defendant is found guilty of first degree murder and the victim was a peace officer. No changes have been made to this section since its enactment. The Legislature has reclassified peace officers by grouping them into different categories and has made other changes since 1979. This statute conforms the definition found in the Initiative Act to the new classifications, thereby increasing the numbers and types of peace officers covered by the act...." (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 114, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) p. 28, italics added.)

The "Analysis by the Legislative Analyst," presented to the voters immediately after the above summary, explained that under the 1978 Death Penalty Initiative, the murder of a peace officer in the performance of his or her duties is a "special circumstance" that qualifies the defendant for a sentence of death or life in prison without possibility of parole. (Ballot Pamp., analysis of Prop. 114 by Legislative Analyst, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) p. 28.) It then stated: "Since 1978, there have been no changes to the Death Penalty Initiative. The Legislature, however, has amended the Penal Code. These amendments have resulted in some persons being deleted from, and other persons being added to, the definition of a peace officer. These persons include various employees of the state and local governments. [p] Proposal [p] By reference, this measure would incorporate the legislative changes in the definition of a peace officer into the provisions of the 1978 Death Penalty Initiative. As a result, this measure expands the number and types of peace officers the murder of whom would be a special circumstance under the 1978 Death Penalty Initiative...." (Ibid.)

Thereafter the voters were presented with the "Text of the Proposed Law." An introductory paragraph stated: "This proposed law amends a section of the Penal Code; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in [DELETED:strikeout type] and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in [ADDED:italic type] to indicate that they are new." (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 114, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) p. 29.) Next the voters were advised: "PROPOSED LAW [p].... Section 190.2 of the Penal Code is amended to read: ..." (Ibid.) The full text of section 190.2, with the deletions and additions presented as indicated above, followed.

Almost all of the changes presented in Proposition 114 were nonsubstantive. Paragraphs (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (14), and (16), of subdivision (a) of section 190.2, and the first sentence of subdivision (b), were modified to add "gender neutral" language (e.g., "his" was replaced with "his [ADDED:or her] "), and other minor syntactic (e.g., "such defendant" was changed to "[ADDED:the] defendant"), grammatical, and punctuation changes were made. The sole substantive change appeared in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a), the "peace officer special circumstance" provision, which was presented to the voters for approval in amended form as follows: "The victim was a peace officer as defined in [Penal Code] Section 830.1, 830.2, 830.3, 830.31, [ADDED:830.32] [school police][ADDED:, 830.33] [transportation police][ADDED:, 830.34] [utility security officers] 830.35, 830.36, [ADDED:830.37] [fire investigators][ADDED:,] 830.4, 830.5, [DELETED: 830.5a] [repealed by Stats.1980, ch. 1340, § 14], 830.6, 830.10, 830.11 or 830.12, who, while engaged in the course of the performance of his [ADDED:or her] duties was intentionally killed, and [DELETED:such] [ADDED:the] defendant knew or reasonably should have known that [DELETED:such] [ADDED: the] victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his [ADDED:or her] duties; ..." (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 114, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) p. 29.)

The arguments of the proposition's proponents and opponents followed. The proponents asserted the measure "updates and clarifies provisions regarding murder of our peace officers." (Ballot Pamp., argument in favor of Prop. 114 as presented to the voters, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) p. 30.) They explained, "In the years since the death penalty was enacted, new categories of peace officers have been created by the Legislature. Most of these are investigators whose pursuit of white collar criminals supplements the work of regular police and sheriffs. Some provide public safety services on special public lands. All are sworn to your service, and willingly face danger and hardship in the interests of law and order. [p] Proposition 114 simply adds these new categories of peace officers to the list of those whose deaths can trigger a death penalty sentence for the perpetrator.... Your 'yes' vote will guarantee that no murderer of a peace officer will avoid the ultimate penalty solely because the [death penalty] law is not technically up to date. [p] ..." (Ibid.) The opponents responded that the expanded classification of peace officers was unnecessary.

B. Proposition 115

In contrast to the narrow scope of Proposition 114, Proposition 115 was a wide-ranging measure designed to make "comprehensive reforms ... to our criminal justice system." (Prop. 115, § 1(a); see Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 342-346, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 [summarizing the measure's various reforms].) The "Official Title and Summary" and the "Analysis by the Legislative Analyst" described for the voters the numerous constitutional and statutory changes proposed by the measure. (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 115, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) pp. 32-33.) The measure proposed six substantial constitutional changes concerning postindictment preliminary hearings, independent construction of state constitutional rights, the People's rights to due process and speedy trial, joinder and severance of cases, hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings, and "reciprocal" discovery procedures. (See Prop. 115, §§ (2)-(5).) The measure also proposed to repeal, amend, and add provisions to numerous statutes found in the Code of Civil Procedure (§§ 223, 223.5), the Evidence Code (§ 1203.1), and the Penal Code (§§ 189, [ADDED:190.2], 190.41, 190.5, 206, 206.1, 859, 866, 871.6, 872, 954.1, 987.05, 1049.5, 1050.1, 1054-1054.7, 1102.5,...