Opinion ID: 1386055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: State Separation of Powers Doctrine

Text: (8) Finally, petitioner argues that the new hearsay procedures violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers (Cal. Const., art. III, § 3), in that the prosecutor is given excessive power to control the quantity and quality of the evidence admitted at preliminary hearings. (See Esteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119 [95 Cal. Rptr. 524, 485 P.2d 1140] [prosecutor improperly vested with authority to prevent magistrate from reducing offense to misdemeanor]; People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89 [89 Cal. Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993] [prosecutor's improper authority to prevent trial court from dismissing allegation of prior conviction].) First, as previously noted, by reason of Proposition 115, the state Constitution now expressly permits the admission of hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings. Thus, the prosecutor's ensuing control over the kind of evidence admitted at such hearings is specifically authorized by the Constitution, and the general separation of powers doctrine would not apply. (See Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 596 [96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241, 41 A.L.R.3d 1187].) Moreover, we discern no separation of powers violation here. Although the prosecutor is allowed to rely on hearsay evidence in presenting his or her case at the preliminary hearing, and may require the defendant to make a satisfactory proof offer before the defendant may call any defense witnesses (Pen. Code, § 866, subd. (a)), the magistrate retains full authority and discretion to rule on the sufficiency of the defendant's proof offer, to allow the admission of relevant defense evidence, and ultimately to determine whether the proffered evidence demonstrates probable cause to hold the defendant to answer for the charged offenses. The foregoing procedures are readily distinguishable from the prosecutor's absolute veto powers deemed excessive in People v. Tenorio, supra, 3 Cal.3d 89, and Esteybar v. Municipal Court, supra, 5 Cal.3d 119.