People v. Superior Court

We have consolidated these writ petitions arising from similar pretrial motions in unrelated capital cases to resolve these questions: Do the reciprocal discovery provisions of Penal Code section 1054 et seq. require defense disclosure of penalty phase evidence? Yes. Are they constitutional? Yes.

I

In both cases the prosecution served informal requests for discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.5, subdivision (b), part of Proposition 115’s “Crime Victims Justice Reform Act.” Defense counsel reftised to cooperate, and the district attorney brought motions to compel the identification of witnesses to be called in the penalty phases. Defendants answered that such discovery was not authorized under the statutory scheme and would violate various constitutional rights if it were. The prosecution motion was granted in Daniel Michael Duffy’s case , but denied in that of Gregory Allen Sturm.

Proposition 115, an initiative measure on the June 5, 1990, ballot, was designed to eliminate all or many of the rights of criminal defendants under the state Constitution. (See Prop. 115, § 3.) Among many other things, it added a constitutional provision calling for reciprocal…