Opinion ID: 1122777
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Interpretation to avoid questions of constitutional validity.

Text: (7) Both the United States Supreme Court and the California courts have pointed out on numerous occasions that a court, when faced with an ambiguous statute that raises serious constitutional questions, should endeavor to construe the statute in a manner which avoids any doubt concerning its validity. [14] (See, e.g., Lynch v. Overholser (1962) 369 U.S. 705, 710-711 [8 L.Ed.2d 211, 215-216, 82 S.Ct. 1063]; United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & Hudson Co. (1909) 213 U.S. 366, 407-408 [53 L.Ed. 836, 848-849, 29 S.Ct. 527]; People v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814, 829 [176 Cal. Rptr. 521, 633 P.2d 186]; Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 197, 207 [152 Cal. Rptr. 345, 589 P.2d 853]; Kramer v. Municipal Court (1975) 49 Cal. App.3d 418, 424 [122 Cal. Rptr. 672]; White v. Valenta (1965) 234 Cal. App.2d 243, 249 [44 Cal. Rptr. 241, 13 A.L.R.3d 1271].) In United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., supra, the Supreme Court explained the scope and the rationale of this established canon of constitutional adjudication: It is elementary when the constitutionality of a statute is assailed, if the statute be reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, it is our plain duty to adopt that construction which will save the statute from constitutional infirmity. [Citation.] And unless this rule be considered as meaning that our duty is to first decide that a statute is unconstitutional and then proceed to hold that such ruling was unnecessary because the statute is susceptible of a meaning, which causes it not to be repugnant to the Constitution, the rule plainly must mean that where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.  (213 U.S. at pp. 407-408 [53 L.Ed. at p. 849]; italics added.) (3d) The 1978 initiative, if construed to eliminate any intent to kill requirement for the felony murder special circumstance, would encounter substantial constitutional problems. As we will explain, application of the statute as so construed to accomplices who did not intend to kill would in many cases violate the federal cruel and unusual punishment clause. [15] Its application to an actual killer who did not intend to kill would present a close and unsettled constitutional question. In addition, a statutory classification which imposed a minimum penalty of death or imprisonment without parole upon persons who did not intend to kill, while permitting some deliberate killers to escape with a sentence of life with possibility of parole, would raise further constitutional questions: whether the statute complies with Supreme Court decisions requiring the screening of murder cases to select out those most deserving of enhanced punishment, and whether its classification conforms to constitutional standards of equal protection. The United States Supreme Court decision in Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 [73 L.Ed.2d 1140, 102 S.Ct. 3368], guides our analysis of the constitutionality of the 1978 initiative under the federal Constitution. The facts of that case closely resemble the instant case. While Enmund waited in a car, his two codefendants approached the residence of Thomas and Eunice Kersey. When they demanded money from Thomas, Eunice shot and wounded one of the codefendants. The codefendants then killed the Kerseys, took some money, and fled with Enmund in the car. Enmund was convicted of first degree murder with the aggravating circumstance that the felony was committed while Enmund was engaged in or an accomplice to robbery. He was then sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court held that the death sentence violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. (8) In Coker v. Georgia (1977) 433 U.S. 584 [53 L.Ed.2d 982, 97 S.Ct. 2861], the court established the doctrine that punishment is `excessive' and unconstitutional if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. (P. 592 [53 L.Ed.2d at p. 989].) (Plurality opn. of White, J.) [16] In the Enmund case, the court applied both tests. With respect to proportionality, it examined the judgments of legislatures and of juries, finding that only nine states, including California, authorize the death penalty for an accomplice to robbery (458 U.S. at pp. 789-793 [73 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1146-1149, 102 S.Ct. at pp. 3372-3374]), and in those states juries have consistently repudiated imposition of the death penalty for crimes such as Enmund's. (458 U.S. at pp. 794-796 [73 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1149-1151, 102 S.Ct. at p. 3375].) Such judgments, the court concluded, conform to the principle that `causing harm intentionally must be punished more severely than causing harm unintentionally.' (458 U.S. at p. 798 [73 L.Ed.2d at p. 1152, 102 S.Ct. at p. 3377], quoting Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (1968) p. 162.) (9) Turning to the question of the purpose of punishment, the court observed that `[t]he death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders' (458 U.S. at p. 798 [73 L.Ed.2d at p. 1152, 102 S.Ct. at p. 3377], quoting Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. 153, 183 [49 L.Ed.2d 859, 880]). A death penalty which failed to serve either purpose would be unconstitutional. But the imposition of the death penalty upon one who does not intend to kill, the court said, serves no purpose of deterrence, for if a person does not intend that life be taken or contemplate that lethal force will be employed by others, the possibility that the death penalty will be imposed for vicarious felony murder will not `enter into the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act.' (458 U.S. at p. 799 [73 L.Ed.2d at p. 1153, 102 S.Ct. at pp. 3377-3378].) [17] Neither does it serve the purpose of retribution, for that purpose requires punishment proportional to culpability, and [p]utting Enmund to death to avenge two killings that he did not commit and had no intention of committing or causing does not measurably contribute to the retributive end of ensuring that the criminal gets his just deserts. (458 U.S. at p. 801 [73 L.Ed.2d at p. 1154, 102 S.Ct. at p. 3378].) The court concluded that to impose the death penalty upon a defendant in the absence of proof that [he] killed or attempted to kill, and regardless of whether [he] intended or contemplated that life would be taken would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (458 U.S. at p. 801 [73 L.Ed.2d at p. 1154, 102 S.Ct. at p. 3379].) Although there are factual differences between Enmund and the present case, they are insufficient to distinguish that decision. Enmund waited in the getaway car; defendant participated in the robbery. Defendant was armed; we do not know if Enmund was. But the similarities between the two cases are controlling. Defendant did not kill, did not attempt to kill, and was not present at the time of the killing. Nothing in the record suggests that he intended the death of Jennifer Slagle or any other person. The most that could be said concerning defendant's culpability for Jennifer's death is that defendant knew his partner was armed, and may have contemplated that in an unexpected confrontation Perez would shoot and someone might be killed. The same can be said of Enmund; yet his knowledge that his codefendants were armed and prepared to kill did not prevent the United States Supreme Court from concluding that imposition of the death penalty on Enmund was unconstitutional. Enmund v. Florida makes clear that an accomplice who neither intends to kill nor contemplates the use of lethal force cannot be sentenced to death. It necessarily follows that the evidence presented at defendant Carlos' preliminary hearing is insufficient to hold him for trial on a capital charge. The district attorney tacitly acknowledges this constitutional barrier, and has informed us that he will not ask for the death penalty in the Carlos trial. (3e) The holding in Enmund was carefully limited to the case of a defendant who did not kill, attempt to kill, or contemplate that life would be taken. The reasoning of the case, however, raises the question whether the death penalty can be imposed on anyone who did not intend or contemplate a killing, even the actual killer. The court's analysis of the deterrent and retributive purpose of the death penalty focuses on the subjective intent and moral culpability of the defendant, and in this context there is no basis to distinguish the killer from his accomplice. The threat of capital punishment is unlikely to deter an accidental or negligent killing, and in terms of moral responsibility for an unintended homicide, all participants in the underlying felony would seem equally culpable. Consequently, the question whether the felony murder special circumstance can constitutionally be applied to any defendant, including the actual killer, who did not intend or contemplate a killing appears a substantial and yet unsettled constitutional issue under the Eighth Amendment. [18] Furthermore, a new set of constitutional issues arises when we consider that the 1978 initiative imposes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with possibility of parole for a wilful and premeditated killing that does not come within any listed special circumstance. If the initiative were construed to impose a penalty of death or life imprisonment without parole for unintended felony murder, it would punish more severely a defendant who did not intend to kill than one who did. Such a distinction would create problems under both the Eighth Amendment and the equal protection clause. (10) Decisions under the Eighth Amendment have established that a state cannot impose the death penalty for all murders ( Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280 [49 L.Ed.2d 944, 96 S.Ct. 2978]; Roberts v. Louisiana (1976) 428 U.S. 325 [49 L.Ed.2d 974, 96 S.Ct. 3001]), nor give the jury uncontrolled discretion to select which defendants suffer that penalty ( Furman v. Georgia, supra, 408 U.S. 238 [33 L.Ed.2d 346]). Instead, it must develop standards to guide the decision of the jury, selecting from among the murder victims those aggravated cases in which the death penalty would be appropriate. A capital sentencing scheme must ... provide a `meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [the penalty] is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.' ( Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) 446 U.S. 420, 427 [64 L.Ed.2d 398, 406, 100 S.Ct. 1759], quoting Furman at p. 313 [33 L.Ed.2d at p. 392] (White, J., conc.).) (3f) We doubt that a screening device which included those who killed accidentally, while excluding some intentional killers, would meet the United States Supreme Court's test. Arguably the California procedure might be saved by the power of the jury to reject the death penalty after finding a felony murder special circumstance on the ground that the mitigating factors (which would include the absence of an intent to kill) outweigh the aggravating factors. (See Jurek v. Texas (1976) 428 U.S. 262 [49 L.Ed.2d 929, 96 S.Ct. 2950].) The jury, however, would still have the power to impose a death sentence in such a case, and even if it rejected that penalty, the defendant would still receive a more severe sentence than the deliberate murderer who committed no underlying felony. The language from Godfrey v. Georgia indicates that the Eighth Amendment requires a meaningful basis (446 U.S. 420, 427 [64 L.Ed.2d 398, 406]), a principled way (p. 433 [64 L.Ed.2d at p. 409]), to distinguish capital from noncapital murders. The equal protection clause may require more. We deal with a classification affecting the express, fundamental right to life itself. Liberty is also a fundamental right, and one can conceive of no greater abridgment of liberty than a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Consequently, the state might have to show that the classification established by the 1978 initiative is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. (See People v. Olivas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 236, 251 [131 Cal. Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375]; In re Maurice S. (1979) 90 Cal. App.3d 190, 193 [153 Cal. Rptr. 317].) Even under this stringent standard the state may well be able to justify treating a deliberate felony murder as more serious than a deliberate murder unrelated to a felony. But it is doubtful that it could explain treating an unintended felony murder as an offense more serious than wilful nonfelony murder. As the court explained in Enmund, the state's interest in deterrence and retribution does not warrant a death penalty for a defendant who did not intend to kill (see 458 U.S. 782, 801 [73 L.Ed.2d 1140, 1154, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3378]) and it is difficult to conceive of any other interest that might justify such a result. [19] We need not decide whether the felony murder special circumstance of the 1978 law, if lacking an intent to kill requirement, would be unconstitutional on its face or as applied. ( Enmund makes it clear that imposing the death penalty on accomplices who did not intend or contemplate a killing is unconstitutional, but the other constitutional issues discussed in this opinion remain open questions.) It is sufficient to note that substantial constitutional questions can be avoided by a construction of the enactment to require a showing of intent to kill as an element of the special circumstance. Under established rules of construction, we should adopt that view of the law which steers clear of constitutional obstacles and leaves no doubt of the statute's validity. The district attorney argues that although the constitutional principles may demand an intent to kill requirement before imposing the death penalty, the initiative could be severed, and the lesser penalty of life imprisonment without possibility of parole imposed upon defendants who did not intend to kill. The argument misses the mark on several counts. First, the statutory language cannot reasonably be construed to impose different requirements for a special circumstance finding depending upon whether the prosecutor seeks, or the jury returns a death penalty. While we could interpret the statute to permit a special circumstance finding without intent to kill, then hold the law unconstitutional whenever such a finding leads to a death penalty, a holding of partial invalidity is inferior to a construction which sustains the statute in all its applications. Second, the construction proposed by the district attorney does not avoid all constitutional issues. It would still leave some defendants who did not intend to kill with a minimum sentence of life without possibility of parole, while leaving others who killed deliberately with a maximum sentence that permitted parole. The state would still bear the burden of justifying this classification, and it is doubtful whether it could meet that burden. Finally, as we recently explained in People v. Spears, supra, 33 Cal.3d 279, the entire procedural scheme for disposition of a charge of special circumstances [under the 1978 initiative] ... `is properly restricted to cases involving adults charged with first degree murder and subject to the death penalty.' (Pp. 282-283, quoting People v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814, 831 [176 Cal. Rptr. 521, 633 P.2d 186].) If a defendant is not subject to the death penalty, then under the reasoning of Davis and Spears he is not subject to special circumstance proceedings and cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. [20]
The wording of the initiative, its purpose as explained to the voters, the principle that penal statutes should be construed to give the defendant the benefit of reasonable doubt, and the companion principle that statutes should be construed to avoid substantial questions of their constitutional validity  all unite to support the conclusion that the felony murder special circumstance of the 1978 initiative requires proof that the defendant intended to kill. Specifically, we construe the word intentionally in subdivision (b) of section 190.2 to apply to all defendants  actual killers and accomplices alike  and to require an intent to kill before a defendant is subject to a special circumstance finding under paragraph 17 of that section. Since the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing in the present case is plainly insufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe defendant intended to kill the victim or any other person, defendant cannot be tried on a felony murder special circumstance allegation. Let a writ of prohibition issue barring respondent court from conducting further proceedings against defendant on the special circumstance allegation in count I of the information. [21]