CLINTON K. v. Superior Court

On June 5, 1990, by adoption of an initiative designated on the ballot as Proposition 115 and entitled the “Crime Victims Justice Reform Act,” the voters of California authorized reciprocal discovery in criminal cases. The voters did not intend to apply the reciprocal discovery provisions to juvenile delinquency proceedings. (Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1422 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 ] (Robert S.).) The juvenile court may, however, under its inherent power, grant such discovery as facilitates the administration of justice and promotes the orderly ascertainment of the truth. (Joe Z. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 797, 801-802 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 594 , 478 P.2d 26 ] (Joe Z.).)

This petition raises questions not yet addressed by the appellate courts: whether and under what conditions does the court’s inherent power permit it to order discovery by the prosecution prior to a fitness hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. We conclude the court has discretion to order discovery prior to a section 707 hearing. Unlike adult criminal discovery under Penal Code section 1054 et seq., where the opposing party must show good cause to deny…