Court Opinion

ID: 9559934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:38:35.366616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:52.163854
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J.
Although I concur with the result and the bulk of the majority’s reasoning, I do not agree with the majority’s analysis of the alleged conflict between California Constitution, article I, sections 28, subdivision *902(d)1 and 29. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 895-896.) The principle that a specific provision governs over a general provision only applies if there is an actual conflict between the two provisions. No actual conflict exists here. The media exception in section 28, subdivision (d), by its terms, is confined to “this section” and does not expressly preclude a more general provision from narrowing the scope of a newsperson’s immunity. This qualified language should not insulate the media exception from future modifications or alterations, especially given that the electorate could have expressly done so. (See, e.g., §§ 27, 30, subd. (a).) Indeed, nothing in the pertinent ballot measures even suggests such an intent. Because this aspect of the majority’s analysis is both suspect and unnecessary to its holding and may affect other constitutional provisions with clauses analogous to section 28, subdivision (d) (see, e.g., §§ 7, subd. (a), 24, 31, subds. (c)-(e); art. IV, § 5, subd. (d), art. V, § 14, subd. (d), art. X B, § 15, art. XIIID, § 1, art. XVI, §§ 5, 6, 16, subd. (c)), I decline to adopt it.
Werdegar, J., concurred.

All references are to article I of the California Constitution unless otherwise indicated.