Senate Bill 1437
by
Kenneth A. Reed on Mar. 23, 2020
Summary: Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional. Senate Bill 1437 amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine for murder and the felony-murder rule “to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.
CA 4th Div 3
People vs Cruz
G057564
There have been a couple of Superior Court Judges in the Orange County Superior Court that have taken the position that Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional.
As you all know Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4) (Senate Bill 1437), which took effect January 1, 2019. Senate Bill 1437 amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine for murder and the felony-murder rule “to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Senate Bill 1437 also provided for retroactive application of these amendments by creating a process in section 1170.95 through which qualifying defendants can have their murder convictions vacated and be resentenced. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.)
The Superior Court judge concluded Senate Bill 1437 violates article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution for two reasons: (1) it amends Proposition 7, which, when approved by voters in the 1978 general election, increased the penalty for first and second degree murder, and (2) it amends Proposition 115, which, when passed by voters in the 1990 primary election, added five serious felonies to the list of crimes warranting a first degree felony-murder conviction.
The Fourth DCA reasoned the voters’ initiative powers that the District Attorney is concerned about are provided for in our state constitution. It protects the will of the electorate by prohibiting the Legislature from undoing what the voters have done through the initiative process. The Legislature remains free to pass laws concerning areas related to but distinct from those covered in an initiative statute but the legislation may not take away from an initiative’s provisions without the voters’ consent. (People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1025 (Kelly).) We conclude the Legislature’s enactment of Senate Bill 1437 has not undone what the voters accomplished with Proposition 7 or Proposition 115 and therefore the legislation does not violate the constitution. Senate Bill 1437 addresses the elements of murder, an area related to but distinct from the penalty for murder set by voters in Proposition 7. Nothing in the language of Proposition 7 nor its ballot materials evidences an intent by the voters to prohibit the Legislature from refining the elements of murder, namely limiting accomplice liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or felony-murder rule. Nor did the voters so limit the Legislature with the passage of Proposition 115.
The Court reverse the court’s order denying defendant’s petition and remand the matter for a hearing on the petition’s merits.
