People?v.?Price?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?324?,?3?Cal.Rptr.2d?106;?821?P.2d?610 [No.?S004719. Dec?30,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?CURTIS?FLOYD?PRICE,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Humboldt?County,?No.?CR9898,?John?E.?Buffington,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Mark?E.?Cutler,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Ronald?E.?Niver?and?David?H.?Rose,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?376] OPINION KENNARD,?J. After?a?year-long?trial,?fn.?1?a?jury?convicted?defendant?Curtis?Floyd?Price?of?the?first?degree?murders?of?Elizabeth?Ann?Hickey?and?Richard?Barnes?(Pen.?Code,???187;?all?further?statutory?references?are?to?this?code?unless?otherwise?indicated),?and?it?made?special?circumstance?findings,?as?to?the?Hickey?murder,?of?multiple?murder?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(3))?and?burglary-murder?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(vii)).?The?jury?also?convicted?defendant?of?one?count?each?of?robbery?(??211)?with?the?use?of?a?firearm?(???1203.06,?12022.5),?burglary?(??459),?receiving?stolen?property?(??496),?and?conspiracy?(??182).?The?jury?further?found?that?defendant?had?twice?previously?been?convicted?of?serious?felonies?(??667,?subd.?(a)),?and?had?completed?two?prior?separate?prison?terms?(??667.5,?subd.?(a)). The?jury?fixed?the?penalty?for?the?murder?of?Hickey?at?death.?The?trial?court?denied?the?automatic?motion?to?modify?the?verdict?of?death?(??190.4,?subd.?(e)),?and?it?sentenced?defendant?on?the?noncapital?counts?to?imprisonment?for?a?determinate?term?of?10?years,?consecutive?to?an?indeterminate?term?of?25?years?to?life.?Defendant's?appeal?from?the?judgment?is?automatic.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).) The?sentence?for?the?offense?of?burglary?shall?be?stayed,?but?the?judgment?shall?otherwise?be?affirmed. Facts Summary?of?Facts?Relating?to?Guilt Defendant?was?released?from?prison?in?September?1982.?On?January?23,?1983,?the?gun?collection?of?Richard?Moore?disappeared?from?his?residence,?apparently?having?been?stolen?in?a?burglary.?On?February?13,?1983,?the?body?of?Richard?Barnes?was?found?in?his?residence.?He?had?been?shot?in?the?back?of?the?head?three?times.?On?the?morning?of?February?19,?1983,?Berlie?Petry?found?the?body?of?Elizabeth?Ann?Hickey?in?the?residence?they?shared.?Hickey,?the?stepdaughter?of?burglary?victim?Moore,?had?been?beaten?to?death?with?a?blunt?instrument;?guns?belonging?to?her?and?to?Petry?were?missing?from?their?residence.?That?same?evening,?a?gunman?robbed?employees?of?the?Triplex?Theater.?The?Barnes?killing?occurred?in?Los?Angeles?County.?The?Moore?burglary,?the?Hickey?killing,?and?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery?all?occurred?in?Humboldt?County.?[1?Cal.4th?377] The?police?arrested?defendant?for?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery.?After?a?lengthy?investigation,?he?was?also?charged?with?the?Barnes?and?Hickey?murders,?receiving?stolen?property?(the?Moore?weapons),?and?robberies?at?three?other?commercial?establishments?in?Humboldt?County?during?January?and?February?of?1983. At?trial,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?that?defendant?belonged?to?the?Aryan?Brotherhood?(AB),?a?prison?gang,?and?had?committed?the?charged?offenses?in?furtherance?of?a?conspiracy?originating?with?the?gang?leadership.?The?principal?objective?of?the?conspiracy?was?the?murder?of?Richard?Barnes,?who?was?the?father?of?an?AB?member?who?had?testified?against?other?gang?members.?Defendant?obtained?the?stolen?Moore?weapons,?possibly?with?the?knowledge?or?assistance?of?Hickey,?to?use?in?the?killing?of?Barnes?or?for?other?AB?assignments.?Hickey?was?killed?to?obtain?the?guns?in?her?residence?and/or?because?she?could?incriminate?defendant?in?the?theft?of?the?Moore?weapons?and/or?the?murder?of?Barnes.?Defendant?committed?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery?to?obtain?funds?with?which?to?carry?out?his?AB?assignments. The?defense?denied?that?defendant?had?committed?any?of?the?offenses.?It?offered?alibi?evidence?to?show?that?defendant?was?not?in?Humboldt?County?at?the?time?of?the?Hickey?killing?and?the?Triplex?Theater?robbery.?It?attempted?to?cast?doubt?on?the?identification?testimony?of?the?robbery?victims?and?the?veracity?of?the?prosecution's?AB?witnesses,?and?it?sought?to?cast?suspicion?on?Petry?for?Hickey's?murder.…
People?v.?Breaux?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?281?,?3?Cal.Rptr.2d?81;?821?P.2d?585 [No.?S004760. Dec?30,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DAVID?ANTHONY?BREAUX,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Sacramento?County,?No.?71072,?Fred?W.?Marler,?Jr.,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment,?with?Kennard,?J.,?concurring.) COUNSEL Quin?Denvir,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?Overoye?and?Robert?R.?Anderson,?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Ward?A.?Campbell,?Roger?E.?Venturi?and?George?M.?Hendrickson,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?290] OPINION PANELLI,?J. Defendant?was?convicted?by?a?jury?in?the?Sacramento?County?Superior?Court?of?the?murder,?robbery,?and?kidnapping?for?robbery?(Pen.?Code,????187,?211,?209)?fn.?1?of?Connie?Lee?Decker?on?June?17,?1984;?robbery?and?kidnapping?for?robbery?(???211,?209)?of?Greg?Hardy?on?June?17,?1984;?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon?on?a?peace?officer?(??245,?subd.?(b))?on?June?19,?1984;?and?being?an?ex-felon?in?possession?of?a?firearm?(??12021).?The?jury?also?found?that?the?murder?was?committed?under?the?special?circumstances?of?kidnapping?and?robbery?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)?&?(ii))?and?that?defendant?had?personally?used?a?firearm?in?the?commission?of?the?offenses?(??12022.5).?The?court?imposed?a?sentence?of?death?and?a?consecutive?sentence?of?10?years,?8?months.?This?appeal?is?automatic?(??1239,?subd.?(b)). I?Guilt?Phase?Evidence The?Prosecution. In?the?early?hours?of?June?17,?1984,?defendant?entered?a?liquor?store?which?he?regularly?patronized?in?Sacramento?and,?at?gunpoint,?robbed?the?cashier,?Greg?Hardy,?of?$200.?Defendant?ordered?Hardy?out?of?the?store?and?threatened,?"I'll?kill?you?right?here,"?when?Hardy?refused?his?order?to?get?in?a?vehicle?parked?nearby.?Hardy?was?released?several?blocks?away.?Hardy?described?defendant?to?the?police,?stating?that?he?noticed?nothing?unusual?about?defendant,?his?walk,?his?manner?of?speech,?or?his?physical?actions. At?5:30?p.m.?of?the?same?day?defendant?drove?a?maroon?Corvette?to?a?gas?station?and?liquor?store?near?Sacramento?and,?leaving?a?young?woman?passenger?in?the?vehicle,?hurriedly?entered?to?leave?$5?for?gas.?Paul?Brown,?cashier,?noticed?his?haste?and?uneasiness,?but?nothing?unusual?about?his?speech?or?walk. Tony?Cox,?assistant?manager,?observed?that,?while?defendant?was?pumping?the?gas,?a?young?woman?at?the?phone?booth?was?mouthing?the?words,?"Help?me."?Defendant?grabbed?her?by?the?hand?and?took?her?to?the?car.?The?woman?continued?to?look?at?Cox,?repeatedly?mouthing,?"Help?me."?As?defendant?sped?away,?Cox?recorded?the?license?number?as?CONNN182.?Police?shortly?thereafter?determined?that?a?similar?number?(CONN182)?was?registered?to?Connie?Decker.?[1?Cal.4th?291] Connie?Decker's?body?was?found?about?8?o'clock?the?next?morning?inside?a?chain?link?fence?near?a?road?in?Rancho?Cordova.?There?was?evidence?that?the?body?had?been?dragged?between?the?road?and?the?fence.?Dr.?Hall,?at?the?scene,?concluded,?based?on?discoloration?from?blood?pooling,?that?Decker?had?been?killed?at?another?location.?Following?an?autopsy,?Dr.?Hall?estimated?that?Decker?had?been?killed?in?the?afternoon?of?June?17?and?stated?the?cause?of?death?as?a?gunshot?to?the?head. On?the?afternoon?of?June?17?defendant?borrowed?a?Thunderbird?and,?about?3?or?4?p.m.,?returned?with?a?maroon?Corvette,?license?plates?"CONN182."?He?told?a?companion?that?he?had?pulled?a?gun?on?a?lady?at?a?liquor?store?and?had?driven?her?to?the?outskirts?of?town?and?"dumped?her?off."?The?companion?remarked?that?the?lady?must?be?crying?about?her?car;?defendant?replied?that?he?did?not?think?so.?Defendant?also?stated?that?he?was?going?to?change?the?plates?on?the?car?because?they?were?"too?conspicuous." A?friend?saw?defendant?in?the?Corvette?at?8?p.m.?on?the?evening?of?June?17.?And?shortly?after?10?p.m.?on?the?same?evening,?defendant?filled?a?Corvette?with?gas.?He?attempted?to?pay?with?Decker's?credit?card.?When?told?the?card?had?expired,?defendant?made?an?excuse,?wrote?the?vehicle's?license?number?(lJ80564)?on?the?credit?slip,?and?told?the?attendant?he?lived?nearby?and?would?get?the?cash.?He?never?returned.…
People?v.?Fierro?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?173?,?3?Cal.Rptr.2d?426;?821?P.2d?1302 [No.?S004726. Dec?26,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DAVID?REY?FIERRO,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Riverside?County,?No.?CR-?23644,?Gerald?F.?Schulte,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk?and?Kennard,?JJ.) COUNSEL James?S.?Thomson,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Michael?Laurence?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Harley?D.?Mayfield,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Louis?R.?Hanoian?and?Lilia?E.?Garcia,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?200] OPINION ARABIAN,?J. Defendant?David?Rey?Fierro?was?convicted?by?a?jury?of?first?degree?murder?(Pen.?Code,???187)?fn.?1?and?two?counts?of?robbery?(??211).?The?jury?found?true?the?special?circumstance?allegation?that?the?murder?was?committed?during?the?perpetration?of?a?robbery?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)),?and?also?returned?a?special?finding?that?defendant?shot?and?killed?the?victim.?As?to?each?count?the?jury?also?found?that?defendant?used?a?firearm?to?commit?the?offense.?(??12022.5.)?The?jury?fixed?the?penalty?at?death.?This?appeal?is?automatic.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).) Facts Guilt?Phase?Evidence The?Prosecution On?the?evening?of?January?6,?1985,?Sam?Allessie?was?robbed?and?murdered?in?front?of?the?small?grocery?store?which?he?owned?with?his?wife,?Trudy,?in?Glen?Avon.?Defendant,?who?was?on?parole?for?burglary,?was?arrested?two?days?later.?He?was?linked?to?the?crimes?by?eyewitness?identifications,?fingerprints?which?he?left?on?the?victim's?truck,?bloodstains?in?his?car,?and?money?from?the?robbery?found?in?his?wallet.?As?recounted?at?trial,?the?facts?of?this?tragic?episode?unfolded?as?follows. About?6?p.m.?on?the?evening?in?question,?Sam?and?Trudy?Allessie?were?preparing?to?close?their?store?for?the?night.?As?was?their?custom?on?Sunday?evenings,?they?planned?to?deposit?the?day's?receipts?in?the?night?slot?of?their?bank?and?then?go?to?dinner.?Trudy?had?placed?in?her?purse?approximately?$4,000,?comprised?of?checks,?money?orders?and?about?$1,000?in?cash.?The?cash?was?in?$50?and?$100?denominations.?Trudy?observed?Sam?look?into?his?wallet,?which?he?carried?in?his?back?pants?pocket,?for?money?to?pay?for?dinner. They?left?through?the?front?doors?of?the?market?and?approached?Sam's?pickup?truck.?Sam?opened?the?passenger?door?for?Trudy?and?circled?around?the?back?of?the?truck?to?the?driver's?side.?As?Trudy?lost?sight?of?Sam,?she?heard?loud?talking?from?the?rear?of?the?truck.?Suddenly?she?saw?a?"kid"?trying?to?unlock?the?driver's?door?with?Sam's?keys.?She?became?scared?and?heard?Sam?holler,?"Watch?your?purse,?honey."?Trudy?opened?her?door?to?join?her?husband?and?at?that?moment?was?confronted?by?the?same?"kid"?she?had?seen?moments?earlier.?He?demanded?money.?Trudy?responded,?"All?right,?all?[1?Cal.4th?201]?right,"?and?opened?her?purse?and?handed?him?a?bundle?of?currency.?He?then?grabbed?the?purse?and?ran?toward?the?rear?of?the?truck,?out?of?view. Trudy?thereupon?started?out?of?the?truck?and?heard?a?shot.?fn.?2?Running?to?the?front?of?the?store?she?found?Sam?on?the?ground,?bleeding.?As?she?screamed?for?help,?a?light?colored?car?sped?out?of?the?parking?lot?and?turned?onto?Mission?Boulevard?toward?the?freeway. About?the?time?the?Allessies?were?closing?the?store,?Robert?Gonzales?was?in?a?telephone?booth?outside?the?market?talking?to?his?girlfriend.?Gonzales?heard?a?gunshot?and?saw?a?man?with?a?gun.?Several?seconds?later,?he?observed?the?man?fire?a?second?shot?and?then?run?toward?a?yellow?Pacer.?As?Gonzales?took?cover,?he?saw?a?figure?enter?the?Pacer,?which?raced?away?in?the?direction?of?the?freeway.…
People?v.?Hull?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?266?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?526;?820?P.2d?1036 [No.?S019254.?Dec?26,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?ALMA?MAE?HULL,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Stanislaus?County,?No.?245290,?Donald?B.?Cantwell?and?Frank?S.?Pierson,?Judges.) (Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.) COUNSEL Millard?A.?Murphy,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. Wilbur?F.?Littlefield,?Public?Defender?(Los?Angeles),?Laurence?M.?Sarnoff?and?John?Hamilton?Scott,?Deputy?Public?Defenders,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?[1?Cal.4th?268]?O.?Overoye,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Louis?Vasquez,?Shirley?A.?Nelson,?Robert?R.?Anderson,?Michael?Weinberger?and?Carlos?A.?Martinez,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. Michael?D.?Bradbury,?District?Attorney?(Ventura),?and?Michael?D.?Schwartz,?Deputy?District?Attorney,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION PANELLI,?J. We?granted?review?to?determine?whether?a?writ?of?mandate?under?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?170.3,?subdivision?(d)?fn.?1?(hereafter?section?170.3(d))?is?the?exclusive?means?by?which?a?party?may?seek?review?of?an?unsuccessful?peremptory?challenge?against?a?trial?judge.?(??170.6.)?We?conclude,?as?did?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?this?case,?that?section?170.3(d)?prescribes?the?exclusive?means?of?appellate?review?of?an?unsuccessful?peremptory?challenge. Facts Petitioner?Alma?Mae?Hull?(Hull)?was?charged?by?information?with?the?sale?of?cocaine?base?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???11352).?fn.?2?She?waived?arraignment?and?pleaded?not?guilty.?Jury?trial?was?set?for?October?16,?1989,?at?a?pretrial?conference?held?before?Judge?Pierson.?Later,?the?case?was?assigned?to?Judge?Stone's?courtroom.?However,?after?Presiding?Judge?Cantwell?granted?a?continuance,?another?pretrial?conference?was?set?for?October?26,?1989,?and?the?trial?was?reset?for?October?30,?1989. At?the?second?pretrial?conference,?held?before?Judge?Azevedo,?the?trial?date?of?October?30?was?confirmed.?Although?Hull's?trial?counsel?was?not?present?at?this?pretrial?conference,?Hull?herself?was?present. On?Friday,?October?27,?1989,?Judge?Cantwell?presided?over?another?"department?setting?conference."?As?a?result?of?this?conference,?the?case?was?assigned?to?Judge?Pierson's?courtroom?for?trial.?Neither?Hull?nor?her?trial?counsel?was?present.?Subsequently,?on?Monday,?October?30,?Hull?filed?a?[1?Cal.4th?269]?peremptory?challenge?before?Presiding?Judge?Cantwell,?pursuant?to?section?170.6,?fn.?3?to?disqualify?Judge?Pierson.?Judge?Cantwell?denied?the?motion?as?untimely. Hull?waived?her?right?to?a?jury?trial?and?proceeded?to?trial?before?Judge?Pierson.?Judge?Pierson?found?Hull?guilty?and?also?found?true?the?alleged?prior?conviction.?The?judge?also?found?that?Hull?was?on?her?own?recognizance?pending?trial?on?still?another?charge?at?the?time?of?the?offense.?On?November?27,?1989,?Hull?was?sentenced?to?a?total?term?of?six?years?and?four?months.?This?term?was?to?run?consecutively?to?the?sentence?already?imposed?for?Hull's?prior?offense. Hull?filed?an?appeal?from?the?judgment?of?conviction?that?raised?only?the?denial?of?her?peremptory?challenge?motion.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?an?order?denying?a?peremptory?challenge?of?a?trial?judge?is?not?an?appealable?order?and?hence?was?not?reviewable?on?appeal.?Consequently,?the?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed?the?trial?court's?judgment. Discussion…
Pacific?Southwest?Realty?Co.?v.?County?of?Los?Angeles?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?155?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?536;?820?P.2d?1046 [No.?S021134.?Dec?26,?1991.] PACIFIC?SOUTHWEST?REALTY?COMPANY,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?COUNTY?OF?LOS?ANGELES?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Appellants. (Superior?Court?of?Los?Angles?County,?No.?C607197,?Harvey?A.?Schneider,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL De?Witt?W.?Clinton,?County?Counsel,?Halvor?Melom?and?Albert?Ramseyer,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?for?Defendants?and?Appellants. Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorney?General,?Edmond?B.?Mamer?and?Carol?H.?Rehm,?Jr.,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?Louise?H.?Renne,?City?Attorney?(San?Francisco),?John?J.?Doherty?and?Robin?M.?Reitzes,?Deputy?City?Attorneys,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Appellants. O'Melveny?&?Myers,?Frederick?A.?Richman,?Gregg?A.?Oppenheimer?and?Marcy?Jo?Mandel?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION MOSK,?J. In?1978?the?voters?adopted?Proposition?13,?which?provides?that?until?a?change?in?ownership?occurs?real?property?may?be?taxed?at?no?more?[1?Cal.4th?159]?than?1?percent?of?its?1975-1976?assessed?value?adjusted?for?inflation.?When?ownership?changes,?the?property?may?be?reassessed?at?its?current?market?value.?We?are?asked?to?decide?whether,?when?a?vendor?sells?a?fee?simple?interest?to?a?purchaser?and?simultaneously?acquires?from?the?latter?a?leasehold?interest?in?the?property,?a?change?in?ownership?has?occurred.?We?conclude?that?the?California?Constitution?and?implementing?statutes?compel?an?affirmative?answer?to?that?question,?and?therefore?reverse?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal. I. The?parties?have?jointly?stipulated?to?the?following?facts:?Under?a?purchase?agreement?dated?September?28,?1984,?plaintiff?agreed?to?convey?title?to?Security?Pacific?Plaza,?an?office?building?complex,?"in?fee?simple?absolute"?to?Metropolitan?Life?Insurance?Company?(hereafter?Metropolitan?Life)?for?$310?million.?The?conveyance?was?made?by?grant?deed?recorded?the?same?day.?As?relevant?here,?the?deed?provided?that?"all?of?Grantor's?right,?title?and?interest"?was?conveyed,?"excepting?and?reserving?to?Grantor?an?estate?for?years?subject?to?conditions?subsequent,?upon?and?subject?to?all?of?the?terms,?covenants,?conditions?and?provisions?contained?in?that?certain?unrecorded?Security?Pacific?Plaza?Office?Building?Lease?of?even?date?herewith." The?purchase?agreement?set?forth?the?terms?of?the?transaction.?One?condition?precedent?to?the?sale?was?the?execution?of?the?lease,?which?conveyed?an?estate?for?years?in?two?towers?constituting?73?percent?of?the?property.?Plaintiff?was?to?lease?one?tower?for?60?years,?including?10?consecutive?renewal?options?of?5?years?each.?The?term?of?plaintiff's?occupancy?of?the?other?tower?was?21?months,?including?a?renewal?option.?The?lease?permitted?Metropolitan?Life?to?raise?the?rent?in?accordance?with?changes?in?the?consumer?price?index.?The?lease?also?gave?plaintiff?substantial?control?over?the?structure,?including?the?exclusive?use?of?the?building?exterior?to?display?its?corporate?logo,?exclusive?use?of?the?cafeteria?and?helipad,?and?control?over?security.?The?lease?required?plaintiff?to?pay?its?share?of?the?property?taxes. For?federal?and?state?income?tax?purposes?plaintiff?treated?the?transaction?as?a?sale,?deducting?its?payments?under?the?lease?as?business?expenses.?For?the?same?purposes?Metropolitan?Life?treated?the?transaction?as?a?purchase,?claiming?a?tax?basis?in?the?property?equal?to?the?price?paid.?Metropolitan?Life?used?that?tax?basis?to?calculate?depreciation?deductions,?excluding?the?portion?of?the?purchase?price?attributable?to?the?land.?The?parties?did?not?[1?Cal.4th?160]?stipulate?whether?Metropolitan?Life?paid?the?market?price?for?the?property,?but?did?stipulate?that?plaintiff?pays?rent?at?the?market?rate?under?the?lease.?fn.?1 Following?the?sale,?the?Los?Angeles?County?Assessor?asked?the?State?Board?of?Equalization?(board)?for?advice?regarding?the?correct?method?of?reassessing?the?property.?The?board?advised?the?assessor?to?reassess?only?the?portion?of?the?property?not?subject?to?the?lease,?and?the?assessor?fixed?the?valuation?at?$169,514,243.?Seven?months?later?the?assessor?asked?the?board?to?review?the?transaction?anew.?Upon?reconsideration?the?board?reversed?itself,?concluding?that?the?sale?and?leaseback?had?resulted?in?a?change?in?ownership?of?the?whole?parcel?and?therefore?the?property?should?be?reassessed?in?its?entirety.?The?assessor?accordingly?raised?the?valuation?to?$323?million.?Plaintiff?paid?tax?bills?pursuant?to?the?increased?valuation?but?applied?for?a?reduction?of?the?assessment,?which?it?later?amended?into?a?claim?for?a?refund?under?Revenue?and?Taxation?Code?section?5097,?subdivision?(b).?fn.?2?The?board?denied?the?claim?without?prejudice?and?plaintiff?sought?relief?in?court. The?first?amended?complaint?claimed?an?improper?and?illegal?assessment?on?the?1984-1985?and?1985-1986?tax?rolls?and?sought?a?refund?of?property?taxes?and?attorney?fees.?After?a?hearing?the?court?entered?judgment?for?plaintiff.?The?court?ruled?that?under?the?statutes?and?regulations?implementing?Proposition?13?plaintiff?was?entitled?to?a?refund.?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed. II. The?essence?of?Proposition?13?is?its?provision?that?all?real?property?in?the?state?shall?be?taxed?at?an?ad?valorem?rate?not?to?exceed?1?percent?of?its?full?cash?value.?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?XIII?A,???1,?subd.?(a).)?"The?full?cash?value?means?the?county?assessor's?valuation?of?real?property?as?shown?on?the?1975-76?tax?bill?under?'full?cash?value'?or,?thereafter,?the?appraised?value?of?real?property?when?purchased?[or]?newly?constructed,?or?[when]?a?change?in?ownership?has?occurred?after?the?1975?assessment."?(Id.,???2,?subd.?(a).)?The?only?possible?adjustment?relevant?here?is?for?inflation,?and?that?increase?may?not?exceed?2?percent?per?annum.?(Id.,???2,?subd.?(b).)…
IT?Corp.?v.?Solano?County?Bd.?of?Supervisors?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?81?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?513;?820?P.2d?1023 [No.?S017701.?Dec?23,?1991.] IT?CORPORATION,?Plaintiff?and?Appellant,?v.?SOLANO?COUNTY?BOARD?OF?SUPERVISORS?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Appellants. (Superior?Court?of?Solano?County,?No.?100993,?Jay?A.?Pfotenhauer,?Judge.?fn.?*?) (Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Gordon,?Defraga,?Watrous?&?Pezzaglia,?Titchell,?Maltzman,?Mark,?Bass,?Ohleyer?&?Mishel,?Bruen?&?Gordon?and?Scott?W.?Gordon?for?Plaintiff?and?Appellant. Ronald?A.?Zumbrun,?Robin?L.?Rivett?and?Charles?A.?Klinge?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Appellant. Charles?O.?Lamoree?and?Thomas?H.?Gordinier,?County?Counsel,?Vicki?Sieber-?Benson,?Assistant?County?Counsel,?and?Daniel?P.?Selmi?for?Defendants?and?Appellants. Ira?Reiner,?District?Attorney?(Los?Angeles),?Harry?B.?Sondheim?and?Brent?Riggs,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?David?Nawi,?County?Counsel?(Santa?Barbara),?Stephen?Shane?Stark?and?Timothy?McNulty,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Shute,?Mihaly?&?Weinberger,?Fran?M.?Layton,?Wendy?S.?Strimling?and?Christy?H.?Taylor?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Appellants. OPINION BAXTER,?J. We?granted?review?to?decide?whether?state?laws?governing?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities?preempt?the?efforts?of?Solano?County?(County)?to?force?removal?of?wastes?unlawfully?deposited?by?a?facility?operator?within?the?"buffer"?or?"setback"?zone?long?established?by?County?land?use?permits.?We?find?no?express?or?implied?state-law?restriction?on?the?traditional?rule?that?a?local?government?may?specifically?enforce?its?valid?land?use?regulations?by?demanding?the?elimination?of?offending?conditions.?Indeed,?the?County's?order?defers?to?all?conceivable?state?regulatory?concerns.?The?operator's?attack?upon?the?order,?accepted?by?the?courts?below,?would?permit?the?company?to?reap?the?benefits?of?the?illegal?encroachments.?We?will?therefore?reverse?in?part?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal. Facts IT?Corporation?(IT)?operates?a?106-acre?"Class?I"?hazardous?waste?disposal?facility?(the?Panoche?facility)?in?the?rolling?hills?of?the?County.?The?City?of?Benicia?(City)?adjoins?the?Panoche?facility?downslope?to?the?southwest.?The?Panoche?facility?and?surrounding?land?are?zoned?for?agricultural?use. In?1968,?the?County?issued?conditional?use?permit?R-418?allowing?the?parcel?then?owned?by?IT's?predecessor,?Howard?Jenkins,?to?be?employed?for?[1?Cal.4th?86]?the?disposal?of?liquid?and?solid?hazardous?wastes.?Permit?R-418?included?a?condition?that?all?treatment?and?storage?of?hazardous?waste?must?be?set?back?at?least?200?feet?of?the?outer?perimeter?of?the?permitted?property. Jenkins?created?a?number?of?surface?impoundments-ponds?containing?liquid?waste-on?the?property.?By?1972,?several?of?these?impoundments?(ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17,?and?18),?as?well?as?surface?solid?wastepile?17P,?had?encroached?within?200?feet?of?Jenkins's?property?line.?Pond?17?came?to?the?attention?of?the?County's?planning?commission?(Commission)?as?early?as?1971?because?the?pond?had?intruded?beyond?Jenkins's?property?onto?neighbors'?land.?Apparently?Jenkins?was?allowed?to?cure?the?pond?17?violation?by?purchasing?additional?land?to?bring?this?impoundment?within?a?reconfigured?200-foot?setback. In?1973,?the?County?issued?a?new?permit?for?the?site,?No.?R-708.?Permit?R-708?related?to?a?specific?site?map?provided?by?Jenkins?and?included?a?200-?foot?setback?condition?(Condition?3.F.)?that?was?substantially?identical?to?the?1968?restriction.?fn.?1 IT?acquired?the?Panoche?facility?in?1975?and?continued?to?deposit?wastes?in?ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17,?and?18,?and?in?surface?wastepile?17P.?IT?also?inherited?two?landfills?which?encroached?beyond?the?setback?line?referred?to?in?permit?R-708.?IT?added?hazardous?waste?to?these?landfills?as?well.?IT?itself?established?the?so-called?north?drum?burial?site,?which?intruded?into?the?setback?zone. Since?1975,?IT?has?purchased?additional?contiguous?land?west,?north,?and?east?of?the?facility.?The?effect?of?these?acquisitions?is?that?only?pond?13A,?the?encroaching?unit?nearest?the?City,?remains?less?than?200?feet?from?the?outer?boundary?of?property?now?owned?by?IT.…
People?v.?Superior?Court?(Marks)?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?56?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?389;?820?P.2d?613 [No.?S013832.?Dec?19,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?LOS?ANGELES?COUNTY,?Respondent;?JOHN?MARKS,?Real?Party?in?Interest. (Superior?Court?of?Los?Angeles?County,?No.?A526645,?Robert?Martinez,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Ira?Reiner,?District?Attorney,?Harry?B.?Sondheim,?Donald?J.?Kaplan?and?Brent?Riggs,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?for?Petitioners. Kent?S.?Scheidegger?as?Amicus?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Petitioner. No?appearance?for?Respondent. John?Marks,?in?pro.?per.,?Lawrence?A.?Morse?and?Robert?S.?Gerstein?for?Real?Party?in?Interest. Farella,?Braun?&?Martel,?Douglas?R.?Young,?Douglas?Sortino?and?Ann?G.?Daniels?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Party?in?Interest. OPINION ARABIAN,?J. Introduction We?confront?in?this?case?the?interplay?of?two?otherwise?unrelated?constitutional?concerns:?the?prohibition?against?being?twice?put?in?jeopardy?and?the?right?of?a?criminal?defendant?to?be?mentally?as?well?as?physically?present?at?[1?Cal.4th?62]?trial.?In?deciding?whether?real?party?in?interest?John?Marks?fn.?1?may?invoke?the?protections?of?the?double?jeopardy?clause,?we?first?consider?whether?a?trial?court?suffers?a?fundamental?loss?of?jurisdiction?when?it?subjects?a?defendant?to?trial?without?first?determining?that?he?has?the?requisite?capacity?to?understand,?consult,?and?assist?in?the?defense?of?his?life?or?liberty.?(Pen.?Code,???1368.)?We?resolve?this?threshold?question?in?the?negative?and?conclude?the?court?retains?jurisdiction?over?the?subsequent,?albeit?defective,?proceedings. This?determination?does?not?end?our?inquiry,?however.?Because?the?failure?to?evaluate?a?defendant's?competence?to?stand?trial?mandates?reversal,?principles?of?double?jeopardy?may?limit?the?scope?of?reprosecution.?To?assess?the?proper?application?of?this?constitutional?guaranty?in?the?present?factual?context,?we?also?address?whether?a?conviction?of?a?lesser?degree?crime?by?operation?of?law?(Pen.?Code,???1157)?fn.?2?should?be?accorded?the?same?effect?on?retrial?as?an?express?finding?of?the?lesser?degree?crime?by?the?previous?trier?of?fact.?This?question?we?answer?in?the?affirmative. Factual?and?Procedural?Background We?are?not?unacquainted?with?the?underlying?factual?and?procedural?history?herein,?portions?of?which?we?reviewed?on?automatic?appeal.?fn.?3?(People?v.?Marks?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1335,?1338-1339?[248?Cal.Rptr.?874,?756?P.2d?260]?(Marks?I).)?The?record?established?reversible?error?because?the?trial?court?failed?to?hold?a?competency?hearing?in?compliance?with?section?1368,?subdivision?(b),?after?expressing?a?doubt?as?to?defendant's?ability?to?proceed?with?the?guilt?phase.?(45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1340-1344;?see?People?v.?Hale?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?531,?541?[244?Cal.Rptr.?114,?749?P.2d?769].)?"[T]o?provide?brief?guidance?to?the?trial?court?for?the?possibility?of?a?retrial,"?we?noted?that?"[t]he?jury's?verdict?did?not?specify?the?degree?of?murder?of?which?defendant?was?convicted?[contrary?to?the?mandate?of?section?1157]."?(45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1344.) The?matter?returned?to?the?trial?court,?where?defendant?was?found?competent.?The?prosecution?reinstated?all?charges,?including?first?degree?murder,?both?special?circumstance?allegations,?and?all?enhancement?allegations,?and?[1?Cal.4th?63]?indicated?its?intention?again?to?seek?the?death?penalty.?Defendant?entered?pleas?of?former?acquittal?and?once?in?jeopardy?(??1016),?essentially?contending?that?by?operation?of?section?1157?the?prosecution?could?not?retry?him?on?any?offense?greater?than?second?degree?murder.?fn.?4?The?People?responded?that?the?trial?court's?section?1368?error?rendered?it?without?jurisdiction?except?to?hold?a?competency?hearing?and?that?all?other?proceedings?were?a?nullity.?Since?jeopardy?never?attached,?the?proffered?pleas?were?unavailable. After?a?hearing?on?the?matter,?the?trial?court?agreed?with?defendant?and?limited?the?prosecution?to?retrial?for?second?degree?murder.?fn.?5?The?People?petitioned?for?extraordinary?relief;?in?a?divided?opinion,?the?Court?of?Appeal?issued?a?peremptory?writ?of?mandate?directing?the?trial?court?to?set?aside?its?order?precluding?prosecution?for?first?degree?murder?and?to?strike?defendant's?pleas?of?former?acquittal?and?once?in?jeopardy.…
Rider?v.?County?of?San?Diego?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?1?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?490;?820?P.2d?1000 [No.?S017917.?Dec?19,?1991.] RICHARD?J.?RIDER?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Respondents,?v.?COUNTY?OF?SAN?DIEGO?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Appellants. (Superior?Court?of?Riverside?County,?No.?194690,?Gordon?R.?Burkhart,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?George,?J.,?with?Panelli,?J.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk?and?Kennard,?JJ.) COUNSEL Lloyd?M.?Harmon,?Jr.,?County?Counsel,?Daniel?J.?Wallace?and?Diane?Bardsley,?Chief?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Bruce?D.?MacLeish?and?Andrew?J.?Freeman,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?McDougal,?Love,?Eckis,?Grindle?&?O'Connor,?Lynn?R.?McDougal?and?Tamara?A.?Smith?for?Defendants?and?Appellants. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Jack?T.?Kerry?and?Edmond?B.?Mamer,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?Kelvin?H.?Booty,?Jr.,?County?Counsel?(Alameda),?James?F.?May,?Assistant?County?Counsel,?Susan?Minasian,?County?Counsel?(Butte),?Max?E.?Robinson,?County?Counsel?(Fresno),?John?E.?Slutter,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?James?P.?Lough,?County?Counsel?(Humboldt),?Thomas?M.?Fries,?County?Counsel?(Imperial),?Kevin?E.?Ready,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Bernard?C.?Barmann,?County?Counsel?(Kern),?Stephen?D.?Schuett,?Assistant?County?Counsel,?Cameron?L.?Reeves,?County?Counsel?(Lake),?De?Witt?W.?Clinton,?County?Counsel?(Los?Angeles),?David?L.?Muir,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Jeffrey?L.?Kuhn,?County?Counsel?(Madera),?Douglas?J.?Maloney,?County?Counsel?(Marin),?Allen?A.?Haim,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?James?S.?Reed,?County?Counsel?(Mono),?Ralph?R.?Kuchler,?County?Counsel?(Monterey),?Leroy?W.?Blankenship,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?James?A.?Curtis,?County?Counsel?(Nevada),?Robert?Shulman,?County?Counsel?(Plumas),?William?C.?Katzenstein,?County?Counsel?(Riverside),?Lee?B.?Elam,?County?Counsel?(Sacramento),?Robert?A.?Ryan,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Alan?K.?Marks,?County?Counsel?(San?Bernardino),?Michelle?D.?English,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Steven?M.?Woodside,?County?Counsel?(Santa?Clara),?Karen?Heggie,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Dwight?L.?Herr,?County?Counsel?(Santa?Cruz),?David?R.?Frank,?County?Counsel?(Shasta),?Frank?J.?DeMarco,?County?Counsel?(Siskioyu),?James?P.?Botz,?County?Counsel?(Sonoma),?Stephen?Dietrich,?Jr.,?County?Counsel?(Tuolumne),?James?L.?McBride,?County?Counsel?(Ventura),?Melodie?M.?Kleiman,?Assistant?County?Counsel,?James?P.?Jackson,?City?Attorney?(Sacramento),?Theodore?H.?Kobey,?Jr.,?Assistant?City?Attorney,?Diane?B.?Balter,?Deputy?City?Attorney,?Gray,?Cary,?Ames?&?Frye,?David?E.?Monahan,?Kenneth?S.?Klein,?Walter?&?Pistole,?Jeffrey?A.?Walter,?Howard,?Rice,?Nemerovski,?Canady,?Robertson?&?Falk,?Steven?L.?Mayer,?Remcho,?Johansen?&?Purcell,?Charles?C.?Marson,?Robin?B.?Johansen,?Gibson,?Dunn?&?Crutcher,?John?A.?Arguelles,?Richard?G.?Duncan,?Jr.,?Jeffrey?T.?Thomas,?Georgia?Vanites?Hogan,?Nossaman,?Guthner,?Knox?&?Elliott,?Alvin?S.?Kaufer,?Winfield?D.?Wilson,?Parker,?[1?Cal.4th?5]?Covert?&?Chidester,?Clayton?H.?Parker,?O'Melveny?&?Myers,?Holly?E.?Kendig,?Richard?M.?Jones,?Thomas?G.?Hungar,?Orrick,?Herrington?&?Sutcliffe?and?Paul?A.?Webber?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Appellants. Louis?S.?Katz,?Thomas?F.?Homann,?Carl?Fabian,?Ellen?D.?Geis,?Stephen?J.?Perrello,?Jr.,?Gregory?Marshall?and?Lewis?A.?Wenzell?for?Plaintiffs?and?Respondents. Trevor?A.?Grimm,?Ronald?A.?Zumbrun,?Anthony?T.?Caso?and?Jonathan?M.?Coupal?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiffs?and?Respondents. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. Introduction In?this?case?we?consider,?among?other?issues,?a?question?previously?left?open?(see?Los?Angeles?County?Transportation?Com.?v.?Richmond?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?197,?208?[182?Cal.Rptr.?324,?643?P.2d?941]?[hereafter?Richmond])?regarding?the?validity?of?a?taxation?scheme?enacted?for?the?apparent?purpose?of?avoiding?the?supermajority?voter?approval?requirement?imposed?by?a?1978?initiative?measure?(Prop.?13)?with?respect?to?any?"special?taxes"?sought?to?be?imposed?by?"cities,?counties?and?special?districts"?(see?Cal.?Const.,?art.?XIII?A,???4?[hereafter?section?4]).?At?issue?here?is?the?validity?of?a?sales?tax?(retail?transaction?and?use?tax)?imposed?on?sales?occurring?in?San?Diego?County?(hereafter?the?County)?for?the?purpose?of?financing?the?construction?and?operation?of?criminal?detention?and/or?courthouse?facilities?(hereafter?justice?facilities)?for?the?County.?We?conclude?the?tax?is?invalid?because?it?was?not?approved?by?at?least?two-?thirds?of?the?County's?voters,?as?required?by?section?4. In?1987,?in?express?recognition?of?the?County's?need?for?improved?courtrooms?and?jails,?the?Legislature?passed?an?act?(Gov.?Code,????26250-26285)?creating?the?San?Diego?County?Regional?Justice?Facility?Financing?Agency?(hereafter?the?Agency)?and?setting?forth?the?Agency's?obligations.?Under?the?act,?the?Agency?was?charged?with?adopting?a?tax?ordinance?imposing?a?supplemental?sales?tax?of?one-half?of?1?percent?throughout?the?County?for?the?purpose?of?financing?the?construction?of?justice?facilities.?(Id.,????26267,?26271-26275.)?The?act?provided?for?a?countywide?election?held?for?the?purpose?of?approving?the?tax?ordinance?by?simple?majority?vote.?(Id.,????26271,?26273.)?The?act?also?provided?that?the?Agency?possesses?no?tax?power?other?than?the?foregoing?sales?tax.?(Id.,???26283.)?[1?Cal.4th?6] At?an?election?held?in?June?1988,?the?County's?voters?approved?the?tax?ordinance?by?a?bare?(50.8?percent)?majority?vote.?Plaintiffs,?being?County?taxpayers,?filed?the?present?suit?to?challenge?the?validity?of?the?tax.?(See?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???863.)?As?pertinent?here,?the?complaint?asserted?the?tax?violated?the?supermajority?vote?requirements?of?both?section?4?and?Government?Code?sections?53720-53730?(added?by?Prop.?62,?discussed?below).?Prior?to?trial,?the?tax?went?into?operation;?tax?revenues?have?been?collected?and?accumulated?pending?final?decision. The?trial?court?found?in?plaintiffs/taxpayers'?favor,?concluding?the?tax?constituted?a?deliberate?and?unavailing?attempt?to?circumvent?section?4?and?its?requirement?of?two-thirds?voter?approval?of?special?taxes?imposed?by?special?districts?such?as?the?Agency. The?Court?of?Appeal?disagreed?and?reversed?the?trial?court's?judgment?declaring?the?tax?invalid.?The?appellate?court?acknowledged?that?the?act?creating?the?Agency?"gives?the?Agency?no?significant?governmental?discretion?...?with?respect?to?how?the?tax?revenues?will?be?spent.?In?this?case,?it?is?distressingly?clear?that?the?Agency?is?nothing?more?than?an?empty?shell?through?which?the?Board?of?Supervisors?of?the?County?of?San?Diego?can?exercise?its?discretion."?Nonetheless,?deeming?itself?bound?by?Richmond,?the?Court?of?Appeal?reasoned?that?section?4?is?inapplicable?to?districts?such?as?the?Agency?which?have?no?power?to?levy?a?property?tax.?The?appellate?court?further?concluded?that?application?to?the?Agency?of?a?similar?statutory?supermajority?voter?approval?provision?in?Government?Code?section?53722?would?be?improper?as?an?attempted?local?tax?referendum. As?will?appear,?we?conclude?(1)?the?Court?of?Appeal?erred?in?holding?the?provisions?of?section?4?were?inapplicable?to?the?Agency's?tax,?(2)?the?tax?was?invalid?for?failure?to?secure?the?requisite?two-thirds?voter?approval,?and?(3)?accordingly?we?need?not?reach?the?question?of?the?effect,?application,?or?validity?of?Government?Code?section?53722. Discussion…
Bowens?v.?Superior?Court?(People)?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?36?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?376;?820?P.2d?600 [No.?S019774.?Dec?19,?1991.] ROBERT?BOWENS,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?ALAMEDA?COUNTY,?Respondent;?THE?PEOPLE,?Real?Party?in?Interest. (Superior?Court?of?Alameda?County,?No.?105702,?William?A.?McKinstry,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Panelli,?Kennard,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.) COUNSEL Jay?B.?Gaskill,?Public?Defender,?and?Harold?G.?Friedman,?Assistant?Public?Defender,?for?Petitioner. No?appearance?for?Respondent.?[1?Cal.4th?39] Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attprney?General,?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Clifford?K.?Thompson?and?Laurence?K.?Sullivan,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Real?Party?in?Interest. Ira?Reiner,?District?Attorney?(Los?Angeles),?Harry?B.?Sondheim?and?George?G.?Size,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?Kent?S.?Scheidegger?and?Charles?L.?Hobson?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Party?in?Interest. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. In?this?case?we?resolve?the?issue?of?whether,?in?light?of?the?June?5,?1990,?adoption?of?an?initiative?measure?designated?on?the?ballot?as?Proposition?115?and?identified?as?the?"Crime?Victims?Justice?Reform?Act,"?an?indicted?defendant?is?entitled?to?or?may?receive?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?in?the?courts?of?this?state.?(See?also?Whitman?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1063?[2?Cal.Rptr.2d?160,?820?P.2d?262]?[challenge?to?facial?constitutionality?of?Prop.?115?provisions?permitting?hearsay?testimony?at?preliminary?hearings];?Izazaga?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?356?[285?Cal.Rptr.?231,?815?P.2d?304]?[Izazaga;?challenge?to?facial?constitutionality?of?Prop.?115?reciprocal?discovery?provisions];?Tapia?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?282?[279?Cal.Rptr.?592,?807?P.2d?434]?[challenge?to?retroactive?application?of?Prop.?115];?Raven?v.?Deukmejian?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?336?[276?Cal.Rptr.?326,?801?P.2d?1077]?[Raven;?single-subject?and?revision?challenges?to?Prop.?115].) As?will?appear,?we?conclude?that?a?new?constitutional?provision?enacted?by?Proposition?115?has?abrogated?the?holding?of?Hawkins?v.?Superior?Court?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?584?[150?Cal.Rptr.?435,?586?P.2d?916]?(Hawkins)?and?that,?as?such,?a?defendant?indicted?in?California?is?no?longer?entitled?to,?and?indeed?may?not?be?afforded,?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?or?any?other?similar?procedure. Facts On?January?10,?1991,?the?People?filed?a?grand?jury?indictment?charging?petitioner?with?two?counts?of?selling?heroin?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???11352),?and?further?alleging?he?had?suffered?a?prior?conviction?(Pen.?Code,???1203.07,?subd.?(a)(3)).?The?acts?were?alleged?to?have?occurred?on?or?about?December?4,?1990,?and?December?7,?1990.?At?his?arraignment,?petitioner?moved?for?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing,?asserting?that?his?equal?protection?rights?had?been?violated?under?Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?584.?The?trial?court?denied?petitioner's?motion.?[1?Cal.4th?40] The?Court?of?Appeal?summarily?denied?petitioner's?application?for?a?writ?of?mandate?and/or?prohibition?and?request?for?stay.?We?stayed?all?proceedings?in?the?trial?court?and?issued?an?alternative?writ?of?mandate?to?consider?the?important?constitutional?and?interpretive?questions?presented. Background The?California?Constitution?expressly?sanctions?the?prosecution?of?felony?cases?by?grand?jury?indictment.?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???14;?see?also?Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?584,?593.)?fn.?1?In?Hawkins,?this?court?concluded?there?is?a?"considerable?disparity?in?the?procedural?rights?afforded?defendants?charged?by?the?prosecutor?by?means?of?an?information?and?defendants?charged?by?the?grand?jury?in?an?indictment.?[Fn.?omitted.]"?(22?Cal.3d?at?p.?587.)?We?noted?that?although?the?Penal?Code?provided?those?defendants?ultimately?charged?by?information?with?a?preliminary?hearing?presided?over?by?"?'a?neutral?and?legally?knowledgeable?magistrate,?representation?by?retained?or?appointed?counsel,?the?confrontation?and?cross-examination?of?hostile?witnesses,?and?the?opportunity?to?personally?appear?and?affirmatively?present?exculpatory?evidence?[citations],'?"?the?code?failed?to?provide?a?similar?"?'impressive?array?of?procedural?rights'?"?to?defendants?charged?by?indictment.?(Ibid.)?We?held?that,?"an?accused?is?denied?the?equal?protection?of?the?laws?guaranteed?by?article?I,?section?7,?of?the?California?Constitution?when?prosecution?is?by?indictment?and?he?[or?she]?is?deprived?of?a?preliminary?hearing?and?the?concomitant?rights?which?attach?when?prosecution?is?by?information."?(Id.,?at?pp.?586-?587.)?fn.?2 We?concluded?in?Hawkins?that?until?the?Legislature?prescribed?other?appropriate?procedures?for?defendants?indicted?by?grand?jury,?the?remedy?for?the?equal?protection?violation?was?"simply?to?permit?the?indictment?process?to?continue?precisely?as?it?[had],?but?to?recognize?the?right?of?indicted?defendants?to?demand?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?prior?to?or?at?the?time?of?entering?a?plea."?(Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?pp.?593-594.)?If?the?defendant?made?a?timely?request?for?a?preliminary?hearing,?the?indictment?would?be?refiled?as?a?complaint,?thereby?triggering?the?provisions?of?the?Penal?Code?providing?for?a?preliminary?hearing?(Pen.?Code,???859?et?seq.).?(Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?594.)…
State?Farm?Fire?&?Casualty?Co.?v.?Von?Der?Lieth?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1123?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?183;?820?P.2d?285 [No.?S019059.?Dec?16,?1991.] STATE?FARM?FIRE?AND?CASUALTY?COMPANY,?Plaintiff,?Cross-defendant?and?Appellant,?v.?ERIC?VON?DER?LIETH?et?al.,?Defendants,?Cross-complainants?and?Appellants. (Superior?Court?of?Los?Angeles?County,?No.?WEC?097757,?William?E.?McGinley,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Knapp,?Petersen?&?Clarke,?Ryan?C.?Knapp,?Peter?J.?Senuty,?Horvitz?&?Levy,?Ellis?J.?Horvitz?and?Peter?Abrahams?for?Plaintiff,?Cross-?defendant?and?Appellant.?[54?Cal.3d?1126] Thornton,?Taylor,?Downs?&?Becker,?Clarke?B.?Holland,?Michael?F.?Scully,?Rogers,?Joseph,?O'Donnell?&?Quinn,?Susan?M.?Popik,?Robie?&?Matthai,?James?R.?Robie?and?Pamela?E.?Dunn?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff,?Cross-defendant?and?Appellant. Lillick?&?McHose,?Pillsbury,?Madison?&?Sutro,?Kenneth?R.?Chiate,?John?R.?Cadarette,?Jr.,?Berger?&?Norton,?Michael?M.?Berger,?Richard?D.?Norton?and?Ann?E.?Kelly?for?Defendants,?Cross-complainants?and?Appellants. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?resolve?a?conflict?in?the?Courts?of?Appeal?concerning?whether?courts?should?distinguish?between?types?of?negligence?when?analyzing?coverage?in?the?first?party?homeowners?property?insurance?context.?(See?Garvey?v.?State?Farm?Fire?&?Casualty?Co.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?395,?408-409,?fn.?7?[257?Cal.Rptr.?292,?770?P.2d?704]?(Garvey).)?This?conflict?arises?from?different?interpretations?of?our?observation?in?Garvey?suggesting?a?property?insurer?may?deny?coverage?when?homeowners?construct?improvements?on?the?insured?premises?in?order?to?protect?the?property?from?the?operation?of?a?specifically?excluded?risk.?(Ibid.) As?we?explain,?we?conclude?the?Court?of?Appeal?erred?in?reversing?judgment?for?the?insureds.?In?our?view,?the?jury?correctly?determined?that?third?party?negligence?was?the?efficient?proximate?cause?of?the?loss?and?that?State?Farm?Fire?and?Casualty?Company?therefore?was?liable?for?damages?suffered?by?the?insureds.?In?addition,?we?explain?that?our?observation?in?Garvey,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?pages?408-409,?footnote?7,?has?no?application?in?cases?involving?landslide?or?earth?movement?precipitated?by?the?negligent?acts?of?third?parties.?Accordingly,?we?reverse?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?and?remand?the?cause?for?further?proceedings?consistent?with?this?opinion. Facts The?Von?Der?Lieths?(cross-complainants?and?insureds,?hereafter?insureds)?are?homeowners?in?the?Big?Rock?Mesa?area?of?Malibu,?California,?an?area?that?has?experienced?massive?landsliding?for?several?years.?Insureds?purchased?their?home?in?1976.?In?fall?1983,?the?County?of?Los?Angeles?(hereafter?the?County)?informed?them?that?an?incipient?landslide?might?be?developing?on?the?mesa.?They?subsequently?noticed?cracking?in?the?interior?and?exterior?walls,?patio,?and?front?steps?of?their?home.?[54?Cal.3d?1127] Since?1976,?plaintiff?State?Farm?Fire?and?Casualty?Company?(State?Farm)?provided?insureds?with?an?all-risk?homeowner's?policy.?At?the?time?of?the?loss,?the?policy?provided?coverage?for?"all?risks?of?physical?loss?to?the?property?...?except?for?loss?caused?by?...?settling,?cracking,?shrinking,?bulging,?or?expansion?of?pavements,?patios,?foundations,?walls,?floors,?roofs?or?ceilings"?and?for?"loss?resulting?directly?or?indirectly?from:?...?Earth?Movement?...?Water?Damage,?meaning;?...?(c)?natural?water?below?the?surface?of?the?ground,?including?water?which?exerts?pressure?on,?or?seeps?or?leaks?through?a?building,?sidewalk?driveway,?foundation,?swimming?pool?or?other?structure."?Because?the?policy?did?not?expressly?exclude?coverage?for?losses?caused?by?the?negligence?of?third?parties,?such?negligence?was?a?covered?risk.?(Garvey,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?408.) In?April?1984,?insureds?submitted?a?claim?to?State?Farm?for?damage?to?their?house.?On?December?15,?1985,?State?Farm?paid?insureds?$14,075.71,?to?cover?physical?damage?to?the?dwelling?only.?State?Farm?informed?insureds?that?this?initial?payment?did?not?include?payment?for?"soil?work?or?stabilization?of?site?upon?which?this?structure?is?situated."?Insureds,?through?their?counsel,?demanded?the?policy?limits?of?$231,000?based?on?their?belief?that?in?order?to?stabilize?the?ground?underneath?their?home,?the?entire?mesa?required?stabilization. Thereafter,?State?Farm?filed?a?complaint?in?declaratory?relief,?asserting?that?insureds'?policy?did?not?cover?losses?caused?by?"earth?movement?or?natural?groundwater,"?because?those?types?of?risks?were?specifically?excluded?under?the?homeowner's?policy.?State?Farm?also?asserted?its?policy?did?not?insure?the?cost?of?stabilizing?the?land?under?the?insured?premises.?Insureds?cross-complained?for?bad?faith,?breach?of?contract,?and?intentional?and?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress,?and?sought?declaratory?relief?in?their?favor?in?the?amount?of?the?policy?limits.?The?action?was?consolidated?with?three?related?suits?that?were?settled?prior?to?this?appeal. Insureds?contended?at?trial?that?third?party?negligence?was?the?efficient?proximate?cause?of?their?loss.?They?assigned?negligence?to?a?number?of?individuals?and?entities,?including?the?State?of?California,?for?removing?a?portion?of?the?Big?Rock?Mesa?mountain?slope?to?construct?the?Pacific?Coast?Highway?in?the?1930's,?and?the?developer?of?the?property?for?failing?to?provide?needed?protection?from?landslide?activation.?Insureds?also?blamed?a?local?homeowners'?organization?for?its?failure?to?maintain?its?drain?systems?and?county-required?pumping?systems?(specifically?designed?to?prevent?rising?groundwater),?and?other?homeowners?for?their?failure?to?properly?maintain?their?septic?tank?systems?so?that?the?systems?did?not?affect?the?groundwater?level.?Finally,?insureds?claimed?the?County?acted?negligently?in?approving?the?project?originally?and?in?failing?to?compel?dewatering?(a?[54?Cal.3d?1128]?comprehensive?system?of?drains?to?prevent?groundwater?from?rising)?before?1983?contrary?to?the?express?recommendation?of?the?county?engineer. Insureds?presented?expert?testimony?on?the?causes?of?the?loss?and?on?the?history?of?earth?movement?in?the?area.?Their?experts?testified?that?the?recent?earth?movement?was?caused?by?an?increase?in?the?groundwater?level?due?primarily?to?the?use?of?septic?waste?disposal?systems.…