People v. Superior Court (Pearson)

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265·2010 Cal. LEXIS 2794·48 Cal. 4th 564·227 P.3d 858
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 8, 2010S171117California2,587 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chin, J.

Proposition 115 passed in 1990. Among other things, it added a new chapter to the Penal Code providing for reciprocal pretrial discovery in criminal cases. (Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq.; see Pen. Code, pt. 2, tit. 6, ch. 10.) The new chapter states that “[n]o order requiring discovery shall be made in criminal cases except as provided by this chapter,” and that the “chapter shall be the only means by which the defendant may compel” discovery from prosecutors or law enforcement agencies. (§ 1054.5, subd. (a).) The Legislature may amend Proposition 115’s statutory provisions, but only by a two-thirds majority vote in each house. In 2002, acting with less than a two-thirds majority, the Legislature enacted section 1054.9, which requires a court to order that a defendant under a sentence of death or life in prison without the possibility of parole be provided postconviction discovery in specified circumstances.

We must decide whether section 1054.9 is invalid because it amended Proposition 115 without the requisite two-thirds majority. We conclude section 1054.9 does not amend Proposition 115 because that proposition governs only pretrial discovery and does not prohibit…

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.