Opinion ID: 1293219
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Law Governing Review

Text: As a preliminary matter, we address what law governs this issue. The murders of Kreuger and Jones occurred in August 1982. Before the offenses were committed, however, the voters of this state adopted the initiative measure designated on the ballot as Proposition 8. Section 3 of the initiative added section 28, subdivision (d), to article I of our state Constitution. That section, labeled the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision, declares that relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding. In People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 258 [193 Cal. Rptr. 692, 667 P.2d 149], we held that Proposition 8 applied to offenses committed on or after its effective date of June 9, 1982. (4) Recently, in People v. Markham (1989) 49 Cal.3d 63, 65, 71 [260 Cal. Rptr. 273, 775 P.2d 1042], we determined that the Truth-in-Evidence provision of Proposition 8 abrogated the rule adopted in People v. Jiminez (1978) 21 Cal.3d 595, 605 [147 Cal. Rptr. 172, 580 P.2d 672], imposing a stricter standard of proof on the voluntariness of confessions than that used by the federal courts. Thus, we determined that the voluntariness of confessions or admissions must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. ( Markham, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 71.) With this standard in mind, we review defendant's substantive arguments.