People v. Superior Court

Caution
110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 668·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 633·2001 Daily Journal DAR 8546·91 Cal. App. 4th 602·2001 WL 901103
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 10, 2001B147452, B147799California5,255 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mallano, J.

Traditionally, minors could be tried as adults only when a juvenile court found them unfit for that court’s jurisdiction. But Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, passed by the electorate on March 7, 2000, changed that. Now 14- through 17-year-olds accused of certain crimes are subject to mandatory direct filing in adult court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (b)), and the prosecution has discretion to bring charges directly in adult court on other enumerated offenses without the necessity of a finding of unfitness (id., § 707, subd. (d)). The three minor defendants in this case were charged under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 602, subdivision (b), and 707, subdivision (d), by grand jury indictment. We conclude that Proposition 21 requires that juveniles be prosecuted by way of information following a preliminary hearing and not by indictment by grand jury. Accordingly, we grant relief requiring that the indictment in this case be dismissed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner Karen Terteryan and real parties in interest Rafael Gevorgyan and Anait Msryan were named in a three-count indictment returned by the Grand Jury…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.