Opinion ID: 1369044
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ballot presentation and arguments.

Text: The majority refer to the 1978 ballot to support their position. They first quote the presentation by the Legislative Analyst. He said that this proposition would specifically make persons involved in the crime other than the actual murderer subject to the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of parole under specified circumstances. The majority consider this an evident reference to subdivision (b); I think it refers to the proposition as a whole. In any event, the analyst's statement is unquestionably true; both Carlos, supra, 35 Cal.3d 131, and the majority today interpret the statute so that an accomplice is subject to the death penalty under some circumstances. But the analyst did not tell the voters what the circumstances were, nor whether a particular circumstance  intent to kill  applied to the actual killer. [15] The majority then refer to the ballot arguments. The opponents of the initiative charged that it would impose the death penalty upon the accomplice of an unintentional killer. The proponents responded: The opposition maintains if someone were to lend a screwdriver to his neighbor and the neighbor used it to commit a murder, the poor lender could get the death penalty, even though `he had No INTENTION that anyone be killed.' [¶] Please turn back and read Section 6b [now § 190.2, subd. (b)].... It says that the person must have INTENTIONALLY aided in the commission of a murder to be subject to the death penalty under this initiative. After reading this argument, the voters who supported the initiative could be confident that the lender of the screwdriver could not get the death penalty. But what about the neighbor who accidentally killed someone during the burglary? The argument leaves his fate obscure. If the drafters of the 1978 law believed that it, unlike the 1977 law, would leave the accidental killer subject to the death penalty, here was their opportunity to explain that change to the voters. But no explanation was offered. As we said in Carlos, [t]he adoption of a law to permit infliction of the death penalty upon an accidental killer would be a momentous step, raising grave moral questions. (35 Cal.3d at p. 145.) [16] It certainly would be a very significant departure from the 1977 law, perhaps the most significant change effected by the initiative. One could reasonably expect a change of this magnitude would be made clear in both legal text and ballot argument. The absence of any such language suggests that the drafters did not intend to permit execution of an unintentional killer. More importantly, it compels a conclusion that the voters in approving the initiative were unaware that it could be construed to permit such an execution.