Opinion ID: 1399129
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Propositions

Text: 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 (Stats. 1989, ch. 1165), amended, repealed, and added 52 sections of 13 different codes, and comprised over 46 pages of text.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, supra , 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. [¶] Proposal [¶] 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 strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 114, supra , p. 29.) Next, the voters were advised: PROPOSED LAW [¶].... 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 or her ), and other minor syntactic (e.g., such defendant was changed to  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, 830.32 [school police], 830.33 [transportation police], 830.34 [utility security officers] 830.35, 830.36, 830.37 [fire investigators], 830.4, 830.5, 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 or her duties was intentionally killed, and such the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties;... (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 114, supra, 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, supra, 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. [¶] 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. [¶] ... ( Ibid. ) The opponents responded that the expanded classification of peace officers was unnecessary.
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, 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, 1102.7, 1385.1, 1430, 1511). (See Prop. 115, §§ (6)-(28).) The voters were presented with the full Text of the Proposed Law. (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 115, supra, pp. 33, 65-69.) In an introductory paragraph, they were advised that the measure amends the Constitution and amends, repeals, and adds sections to various codes, including the Penal Code. ( Id. at p. 33.) The actual text of the law followed in just under five pages of fine print. The provisions of the law were divided into 30 sections. Section 10 began, Section 190.2 of the Penal Code is amended to read: ... ( Id. at p. 66.) The full text of section 190.2, with the deletions and additions highlighted, followed. Some of the changes presented were nonsubstantive, and many of these mirrored the syntactic, grammatical, punctuation, and genderneutral changes made by Proposition 114. Proposition 115 proposed no substantive change to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(7), the peace officer special circumstance that was the focus of Proposition 114. A number of substantive changes were made, however, to other provisions of section 190.2:
(i) The opening paragraph of subdivision (a) was amended to delete the requirement that special circumstances be charged and specially found; the revised version provides that a defendant convicted of first degree murder shall face the penalty of death, or life in prison without the possibility of parole, if one or more of the following special circumstances has been charged and specially found under Section 190.4 to be true: ... (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 115, supra, p. 66.) (ii) Paragraph (10) (the witness killing special circumstance) was amended to apply to the intentional killing of a witness to prevent his or her testimony in any criminal or juvenile proceeding.... (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 115, supra, p. 66.) (iii) Paragraphs (11) and (12) (the prosecutor murder and judge murder special circumstances) were amended to apply only if the murder was  intentionally carried out in retaliation for or to prevent the performance of the victim's official duties. (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 115, supra , p. 66.) (iv) Paragraph (17) (the felony murder special circumstance) was amended to add two death-qualifying felonies: (x) Mayhem in violation of Section 203 and (xi) Rape by instrument in violation of Section 289. [2] (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 115, supra, p. 66.) (v) The last sentence of paragraph (18) (the torture murder special circumstance) was deleted. The revised section omits the requirement of proof of infliction of extreme physical pain, and reads as follows: The murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture. For the purpose of this section torture requires proof of the infliction of extreme physical pain mo matter how long its duration. (Ballot Pamp., Prop. 115, supra, p. 66.)
Former subdivision (b) of section 190.2 provided as follows: Every person whether or not the actual killer found guilty of intentionally aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, soliciting, requesting, or assisting, any actor in the commission of murder in the first degree shall suffer death or confinement in state prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole, in any case in which one or more of the special circumstances enumerated in paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), or (19) of subdivision (a) of this section has been charged and specially found under Section 190.4 to be true.[ [3] ] [¶] The penalty shall be determined as provided in Sections 190.1, 190.2, 190.3, 190.4, and 190.5. Proposition 115 made these changes: (i) It deleted the first sentence of former subdivision (b) (quoted above), and replaced it with the following: Unless an intent to kill is specifically required under subdivision (a) for a special circumstance enumerated therein, an actual killer as to whom such special circumstance has been found to be true under Section 190.4 need not have had any intent to kill at the time of the commission of the offense which is the basis of the special circumstance in order to suffer death or confinement in state prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole. (ii) It added subdivision (c), as follows: Every person not the actual killer who, with the intent to kill, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, requests, or assists any actor in the commission of murder in the first degree shall suffer death or confinement in state prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole, in any case in which one or more of the special circumstances enumerated in subdivision (a) of this section has been found true under Section 190.4. (iii) Finally, it added subdivision (d), as follows: Notwithstanding subdivision (c), every person not the actual killer, who, with reckless indifference to human life and as a major participant, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, requests, or assists in the commission of a felony enumerated in paragraph (17) of subdivision (a), which felony results in the death of some person or persons, who is found guilty of murder in the first degree therefor, shall suffer death or confinement in state prison for life without the possibility of parole, in any case in which a special circumstance enumerated in paragraph (17) of subdivision (a) of this section has been found to be true under Section 190.4. [4] The arguments of the proposition's proponents and opponents followed. The proponents asserted the constitutional and statutory changes were appropriate and necessary to protect crime victims and to prevent undue delay in the prosecution of crimes. The opponents responded that the sweeping changes proposed might unintentionally restrict the civil rights of law-abiding citizens. Neither the proponents nor the opponents focused expressly on the proposed changes to section 190.2, and neither drew the attention of the voters to the fact that another measure on the same ballot proposed to amend section 190.2.