Opinion ID: 1307571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The concurrence requirement is severable from the rest of the 1963 amendment to section 3051. [8]

Text: (11) When part of a statute is declared unconstitutional the remainder will stand if it is complete in itself and would have been adopted by the legislative body had the latter foreseen the partial invalidation. ( In re Bell (1942) 19 Cal.2d 488, 498 [122 P.2d 22].) Deletion of the challenged provision would leave a coherent amended statute complete in itself, but the critical inquiry is whether the Legislature would have adopted the entire amendment had it foreseen the partial invalidity thereof? ( In re Perez (1966) 65 Cal.2d 224, 232 [53 Cal. Rptr. 414, 418 P.2d 6].) (12) Generally, unconstitutional provisions do not vitiate the whole act unless they enter so entirely into the scope and design of the law that it would be impossible to maintain it without such obnoxious provisions. ( Danskin v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 536, 555 [171 P.2d 885]; People v. Lewis (1939) 13 Cal.2d 280, 284 [89 P.2d 388]; People v. Clay, supra, 18 Cal. App.3d 964, 971.) It is not to be presumed that the Legislature would deliberately enact a statute prohibited by the Constitution. (13) Wherever statutes conflict with constitutional provisions, the latter must prevail. ( Hart v. Jordan (1939) 14 Cal.2d 288, 292 [94 P.2d 808].) As part of the Welfare and Institutions Code, section 3051 is governed by the general rules of construction contained in the preliminary provisions thereof (Gov. Code, § 9603), and the provisions of section 18 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (14) This reads: If any provision of this code, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the code, or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. Such a statement though not conclusive is persuasive evidence of legislative intent. ( Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 339-340 [38 Cal. Rptr. 625, 392 P.2d 385]; see 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) p. 1882.) (15) A reviewing court may look at the history and purposes of the legislation in order to determine whether the Legislature would prefer invalidation of the invidious portion of the statute rather than invalidation of the whole section, and would have made such choice had it considered the constitutional issue. (See Hayes v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 216, 224-225 [98 Cal. Rptr. 449, 490 P.2d 1137].) We turn then to a consideration of the California narcotic addict law. [9] The Governor's 1961 Special Study Commission on Narcotics [10] resulted in a substantial revision of California's narcotics laws, the establishment of procedures for the commitment, release and discharge of narcotic addicts and the establishment of the California Rehabilitation Center and its branches, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. The statute was held to be constitutional ( In re De La O (1963) 59 Cal.2d 128 [28 Cal. Rptr. 489, 378 P.2d 793, 98 A.L.R.2d 705]), and thereafter the Legislature modified the act to remove the external indicia of criminality pointed out in De La O. (Stats. 1963, p. 3354.) The act provides for civil commitment and treatment of narcotic addicts by involuntary commitment of persons not charged with a crime (§ 3050) and involuntary commitment of persons not charged with a crime (§ 3100); for supervision of the addicts in the community through an intensive outpatient program with return of outpatient addicts to the California Rehabilitation Center for further treatment if they are detected returning to drug use; and for long-range intensive research to probe causes, improve methods of control, and ultimate cure or prevention of narcotics addiction. In People v. Ortiz (1964) 61 Cal.2d 249 [37 Cal. Rptr. 891, 391 P.2d 163], in remanding proceedings for the determination of whether that defendant was a narcotic addict and entitled to consideration for commitment to the treatment program, we noted (pp. 254-255) that [T]he discretion thereby vested in the court should be exercised with a view to implementing, rather than possibly frustrating, the strong legislative policy disclosed by the enactments creating and governing the narcotic addict rehabilitation program. That policy, responsive to the current medico-social approach to the issue of drug addiction [citation] favors inquiry into the addictive status of all criminal defendants whose record indicates the presence of an addiction problem. In People v. Victor (1965) 62 Cal.2d 280 [42 Cal. Rptr. 199, 398 P.2d 391], we reversed a commitment, on grounds not here pertinent, and commented (p. 291, fn. 5) on the Legislature's commendable modification of the formerly absolute rule of ineligibility referring to the 1963 amendment here in issue. In People v. Ortiz, supra, 61 Cal.2d 249, we also noted the fact that the amendment required district attorney concurrence. However, the validity of the concurrence requirement was not before the court in either case. In another connection we stated in Victor (62 Cal.2d at p. 295) the general rule that this court will not adjudicate the technical niceties of statutory construction unless and until upon claimed impairment of the constitutional rights of a person subjected to its operation the issue is squarely presented. From a review of the history and content of the act and of the strong legislative policy favoring implementation of this program for the commitment and treatment of narcotics addicts, we find that although it is possible that the Legislature would not have authorized the court to make commitments, notwithstanding section 3052, without the concurrence of the district attorney, this is by no means manifest. No rewriting of the statutory scheme is involved should the severable portions be deleted. Should the entire amendment be declared invalid the basic intention of the Legislature to allow exceptions to be made where the interest of justice requires, could not be carried out. It does not appear that but for the concurrence provision the Legislature would not have modified the exclusionary rule of section 3052. Commitment to the treatment program, should it be ordered by the court below on remand of these proceedings, is not a guarantee that Navarro will be retained therein. The Legislature has made various provisions not only for pre-screening but for rejection of persons who are determined not to be fit subjects for commitment in the expertise opinion of the professional staff by allowing their return to court by the Director of Corrections (see § 3053). By section 3051 (and § 3050) the judge is required in all instances whenever it appears to him that the defendant may be addicted or in imminent danger of becoming addicted, to adjourn the proceedings or suspend the imposition of sentence. Proceedings must then be conducted to ascertain if such person is addicted or in imminent danger thereof unless, in the opinion of the judge, the defendant's record and probation report indicate such a pattern of criminality that he does not constitute a fit subject for commitment under this section. (Italics added.) If found to be a narcotic addict or in imminent danger thereof the judge  shall make an order committing such person to the custody of the Director of Corrections for confinement in the facility until such time as he is discharged.... (Italics added.) Section 3052 withholds from eligibility persons convicted of certain offenses, apparently on the basis that persons who commit such crimes are of a character and nature that would tend to render them less amenable to the services and program offered, either because of excessive criminality, because criminality is not a by-product of their narcotic addiction, or because they have other major problems over and beyond addiction which would interfere with their amenability to treatment or to the integrity of the program. However, section 3051 recognizes that individual consideration should be given to persons falling within section 3052. Exceptions should be made where so warranted. Section 3053 provides that at any time following receipt of any person at the California Rehabilitation Center the Director of Corrections may return him or her to the committing court if he concludes that such person, because of excessive criminality or for other relevant reason, is not a fit subject for commitment. [11] It would not appear, from the cold record, that Navarro fell within any of the four unfitness for commitment categories indicated by Superintendent Wood with the exception perhaps of the third. All that appears as to the prior assault committed 12 years earlier is that two persons were stabbed. No aggravating or mitigating circumstances are stated. Violence potential and escape potential of Navarro at the time of the prior conviction could be considered in the framework of the sentence then given him by the court, commitment to the Youth Authority, and the program given him by the authority, placement in an open forestry camp. Hard work, group involvement, assumption of responsibility, reliability, minimum violence and escape potential are necessarily basic to such placement. Subsequent to Navarro's honorable discharge and prior to the present charges, his only apparent brushes with the law were for nonsupport of his wife. At the time of sentence hearing there was evidence that he was working, making support payments, and had a good record of employment. But he was a narcotic addict. It cannot be held, therefore, that there was any abuse of discretion by the judge in his decision that this was an unusual case in which commitment to the treatment program was in the interest of justice. While this does not affect the issue of law  the constitutionality of the concurrence requirement in section 3051  it does tend to support the conclusion that the Legislature's basic concern in making the amendment appearing in section 3051 was to allow exceptions to be made, in individual cases such as this, to the absolute prohibition stated in section 3052, and that its principal concern was not district attorney concurrence but the strengthening of the provisions of the act in order to accomplish the aims so strongly stated in section 3000. [12] (16) We, therefore, hold that the invidious provision in the 1963 amendment, appearing in sections 3051 and 3050, is severable from the remainder of the 1963 amendment. We hereby disapprove People v. Harris, supra, 17 Cal. App.3d 388, 394-396, insofar as it holds to the contrary. (17, 18) The same legislative policy in favor of commitments to the treatment program, however, also leads us to hold that the language of the amendment purporting to require the defendant's concurrence is not severable from the provision for district attorney concurrence and hence must fall therewith. The entire statutory scheme manifests the Legislature's intent that a defendant's lack of desire for, or lack of cooperation with, the treatment program should not defeat his commitment. Commitment to this program is not consensual but involuntary, although by civil process. (See generally In re De La O, supra, 59 Cal.2d 128, 135-145, 148-149.) We cannot believe the Legislature would have adopted the provision for the defendant's concurrence in section 3051 (and § 3050) had it foreseen the invalidity of the requirement of district attorney concurrence, which we now declare. [13]