Court Opinion

ID: 9550155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:30:37.723156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:56.154740
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I concur.
Lest it be deemed inconsistent to agree with the majority in this case, and to concur and dissent in In re Yurko (ante, p. 857 [112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561]) on the issue of prospectivity, I find it necessary to briefly note the distinction between the circumstances of petitioners Yurko and Stewart.
As I pointed out in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Westbrook v. Mihaly (1970) 2 Cal.3d 765, 802-803 [87 Cal.Rptr. 839, 471 P.2d *908487], there are three alternatives available to a state court which has fashioned a new rule. It may apply the rule: (1) to acts occurring subsequent to the announcement only; (2) to acts occurring subsequent to the announcement and also to the present litigants; or (3) to acts occurring subsequent to the announcement, to the present litigants, and also to acts which occurred prior to the announcement.
In Westbrook and Yurko my colleagues adopted the first alternative, which is clearly erroneous. In addition to the injustice to the litigant who employs his talent and resources to persuade the court to pronounce a new rule, the prospective-only theory results in rendering a mere advisory opinion, a procedure foreclosed to this court. (See my dissent in City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young (1970) 2 Cal.3d 259, 275 [85 Cal.Rptr. 1, 466 P.2d 225, 37 A.L.R.3d 1313]; People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912 [83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126]; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) p. 911.) We may act only if there is—or was, in the case of asserted mootness—a justiciable issue involving rights or duties of the parties to the litigation. Where we purport to vindicate tlie position of the litigant, and then arbitrarily refuse to apply the rule of law to the very litigant involved, a mere advisory opinion emerges; it decides nothing. The opinion has the effect of mere dictum. It fails to meet the challenge of Justice Harlan in Desist v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 244, 259 [22 L.Ed.2d 248, 261, 89 S.Ct. 1030] (dissenting opn.): “it is the task of tins Court, like that of any other, to do justice to each litigant on the merits of his own case.”
That was the posture of petitioner Yurko (ante, p. 857). He was responsible for the new rule and justice should have been done to him on the merits of his own case. But Stewart’s case comes before us after the majority decision in Yurko established the new rule, even if only by dictum, and made the rule prospective. Stare decisis now becomes a factor, even though denial of relief to petitioner Stewart results from the fortuity of chronology.
This situation is not unique. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court addressed itself to the identical problem in Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 301 [18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1206, 87 S.Ct. 1967], I find Justice Brennan’s disposition for the court in that case to be convincing: “We recognize that Wade and Gilbert are, therefore, the only victims of pretrial confrontations in the absence of their counsel to have the benefit of the rules established in their cases. That they must be given that benefit is, however, an unavoidable consequence of the necessity that constitutional adjudications not stand as mere dictum. Sound policies of decision-making, *909rooted in the command of Article III of the Constitution that we resolve issues solely in concrete cases or controversies, and in the possible effect upon the incentive to counsel to advance contentions requiring a change in the law, militate against denying Wade and Gilbert the benefit of today’s decisions. Inequity arguably results from according the benefit of a new rule to the parties in the case in which it is announced but not to other litigants similarly situated in the trial or appellate process who have raised the same issue. But we regard the fact that the parties involved are chance beneficiaries as an insignificant cost for adherence to sound principles of decision-making.” (Fns. omitted.)
Since Stewart’s admissions predate the Yurko opinion by more than four years, he is properly denied relief.
Petitioner’s application for a rehearing was denied April 17, 1974.