Izazaga?v.?Superior?Court?(People)?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?356?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?231;?815?P.2d?304 [No.?S017642. Aug?30,?1991.] JAVIER?VALLE?IZAZAGA,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?TULARE?COUNTY,?Respondent;?THE?PEOPLE,?Real?Party?in?Interest. (Superior?Court?of?Tulare?County,?No.?29058,?Robert?C.?Van?Auken,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Panelli,?Arabian?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.?Separate?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk?and?Broussard,?JJ.) COUNSEL Neal?Pereira,?Public?Defender,?Tim?Bazar,?Assistant?Public?Defender,?and?Hugo?Loza,?Deputy?Public?Defender,?for?Petitioner.?[54?Cal.3d?363] Norwood?Nedom,?Michael?E.?Cantrall,?Linda?F.?Robertson,?Thomas?Havlena,?Kevin?J.?Phillips,?Wilbur?Littlefield,?Public?Defender?(Los?Angeles),?Laurence?M.?Sarnoff?and?Albert?J.?Menaster,?Deputy?Public?Defenders,?Jay?B.?Gaskill,?Public?Defender?(Alameda),?and?Harold?G.?Friedman,?Assistant?Public?Defender,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?Behalf?of?Petitioner. No?appearance?for?Respondent. 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?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Michael?J.?Weinberger?and?David?D.?Salmon,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Real?Party?in?Interest. Edwin?L.?Miller,?Jr.,?District?Attorney?(San?Diego),?Thomas?F.?McArdle,?Deputy?District?Attorney,?and?Kent?S.?Scheidegger?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Party?In?Interest. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. In?this?case?we?resolve?several?issues?presented?by?the?adoption?on?June?5,?1990,?of?an?initiative?measure?designated?on?the?ballot?as?Proposition?115?and?entitled?the?”Crime?Victims?Justice?Reform?Act.”?Petitioner?raises?various?challenges?under?the?federal?and?state?Constitutions?to?the?provisions?of?the?measure?authorizing?reciprocal?discovery?in?criminal?cases.?(See?also?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];?Tapia?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?282?[279?Cal.Rptr.?592,?807?P.2d?434]?[challenge?to?retroactive?application?of?Prop.?115].) We?conclude?that,?properly?construed?and?applied,?the?discovery?provisions?of?Proposition?115?are?valid?under?the?state?and?federal?Constitutions,?and?that?Proposition?115?effectively?reopened?the?two-way?street?of?reciprocal?discovery?in?criminal?cases?in?California. Facts Petitioner?was?charged?with?two?counts?of?forcible?rape?(Pen.?Code,?former???261,?subd.?(2)),?one?count?of?kidnapping?(Pen.?Code,???207),?and?numerous?enhancement?allegations.?The?acts?were?alleged?to?have?occurred?on?June?18,?1990.?The?People?served?on?petitioner?an?informal?request?for?[54?Cal.3d?364]?discovery?pursuant?to?newly?adopted?Penal?Code?section?1054.5,?subdivision?(b)?(section?1054.5(b)).?After?petitioner?refused?the?informal?discovery?request,?the?People?filed?a?formal?motion?for?discovery?in?superior?court,?to?which?petitioner?filed?an?opposition.?Following?a?hearing,?the?court?granted?the?motion?and?issued?an?order?requiring?discovery.fn.?1 The?Court?of?Appeal?summarily?denied?petitioner’s?application?for?a?writ?of?mandate?or?prohibition.?We?stayed?the?discovery?order?and?issued?an?alternative?writ?of?mandate?to?consider?the?important?constitutional?and?interpretive?questions?presented.?Petitioner?raises?several?arguments?regarding?the?constitutionality?of?the?discovery?provisions?added?by?Proposition?115.?Before?we?consider?these?contentions,?we?first?review?these?new?discovery?provisions. Constitutional?and?Statutory?Provisions Proposition?115?added?both?constitutional?and?statutory?language?authorizing?reciprocal?discovery?in?criminal?cases.?Section?30,?subdivision?(c),?added?to?article?I?of?the?California?Constitution?(article?I,?section?30(c))?by?Proposition?115,?declares?discovery?to?be?”reciprocal”?in?criminal?cases.?(“In?order?to?provide?for?fair?and?speedy?trials,?discovery?in?criminal?cases?shall?be?reciprocal?in?nature,?as?prescribed?by?the?Legislature?or?by?the?People?through?the?initiative?process.”) Proposition?115?also?added?a?new?Penal?Code?chapter?on?discovery.?(Pen.?Code,???1054?et?seq.?[hereafter,?the?new?discovery?chapter].)?The?new?Penal?Code?sections?relevant?to?the?issues?that?arise?in?this?case?are?section?1054?(providing?for?interpretation?of?the?chapter?to?give?effect?to?certain?specified?purposes),?section?1054.1?(providing?for?defense?discovery),?section?1054.3?(providing?for?prosecutorial?discovery),?section?1054.5?(providing?mechanism?for?compelled?discovery),?section?1054.6?(providing?that?discovery?shall?not?be?required?of?work?product?or?otherwise?privileged?information?and?material),?and?section?1054.7?(requiring?disclosure?at?least?30?days?prior?to?trial,?placing?a?continuing?duty?to?disclose?on?both?prosecution?and?[54?Cal.3d?365]?defense,?and?providing?for?denial?of?disclosure?on?a?showing?of?”good?cause”).fn.?2 Proposition?115?also?repealed?several?discovery?provisions,?including?former?Penal?Code?section?1102.5?(previously?declared?unconstitutional?in?In?re?Misener?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?543?[213?Cal.Rptr.?569,?698?P.2d?637]?[Misener],?discussed?below),?and?Penal?Code?former?section?1430?(requiring?prosecutor?to?furnish?defendant?with?police?and?arrest?reports).?Furthermore,?Proposition?115?repealed?the?provisions?in?Penal?Code?section?859?requiring?prosecutors?to?furnish?defendants?with?police?and?arrest?reports. III.?Discussion Privilege?Against?Self-incrimination Petitioner?asserts?application?of?the?discovery?provisions?enacted?by?Proposition?115?would?violate?his?state?and?federal?constitutional?privileges?against?compelled?self-?incrimination.?We?disagree. Federal?Constitutional?Challenge.?The?Fifth?Amendment?of?the?United?States?Constitution?recites?in?pertinent?part:?”No?person?…?shall?be?compelled?in?any?criminal?case?to?be?a?witness?against?himself?….”?Petitioner?asserts?that?the?new?discovery?chapter?enacted?by?Proposition?115?compels?a?criminal?defendant?to?be?a?witness?against?oneself?in?violation?of?the?foregoing?self-incrimination?clause. [1]?First,?petitioner?argues?that?the?requirement?under?section?1054.3fn.?3?that?the?defense?must?disclose?to?the?prosecution?the?names?and?addresses?of?all?witnesses?it?intends?to?call?at?trial,?rather?than?merely?its?alibi?witnesses,?violates?the?self-incrimination?clause.?Decisions?of?the?Supreme?Court?compel?a?contrary?conclusion. In?Williams?v.?Florida?(1970)?399?U.S.?78?[26?L.Ed.2d?446,?90?S.Ct.?1893]?(Williams),?the?high?court?upheld?against?a?self-incrimination?clause?challenge?[54?Cal.3d?366]?Florida’s?”notice-of-alibi”?rule,?which?required?a?criminal?defendant?intending?to?rely?on?an?alibi?defense?to?notify?the?prosecution?of?the?place?where?the?defendant?claimed?to?be?at?the?time?in?question,?and?of?the?names?and?addresses?of?the?witnesses?the?defendant?intended?to?call?in?support?of?the?alibi.?Petitioner,?noting?that?section?1054.3?is?not?limited?to?situations?involving?an?alibi?defense,?attempts?to?distinguish?Williams?and?argues?that?the?self-?incrimination?clause?prohibits?the?compelled?discovery?of?defense?witnesses?in?the?absence?of?an?alibi?defense?and?the?special?problems?it?presents.?As?support?for?this?argument?petitioner?cites?the?language?in?Williams?that,?”Given?the?ease?with?which?an?alibi?can?be?fabricated,?the?State’s?interest?in?protecting?itself?against?an?eleventh-hour?defense?is?both?obvious?and?legitimate.”?(Id.?at?p.?81?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?450].) Petitioner’s?argument?is?misguided.?The?language?in?Williams?on?which?he?relies?relates?to?the?due?process?and?fair?trial?issues?addressed?in?that?case,?and?is?not?relevant?to?the?Fifth?Amendment?analysis.?Moreover,?petitioner’s?argument?misinterprets?the?scope?of?the?self-incrimination?clause,?which?”protects?a?person?only?against?being?incriminated?by?his?own?compelled?testimonial?communications.”?(Fisher?v.?United?States?(1976)?425?U.S.?391,?409?[48?L.Ed.2d?39,?55,?96?S.Ct.?1569],?italics?added.)?Under?cases?of?the?Supreme?Court,?there?are?four?requirements?that?together?trigger?this?privilege:?the?information?sought?must?be?(i)?”incriminating”;?(ii)?”personal?to?the?defendant”;?(iii)?obtained?by?”compulsion”;?and?(iv)?”testimonial?or?communicative?in?nature.”?(See?United?States?v.?Nobles?(1975)?422?U.S.?225?[45?L.Ed.2d?141,?95?S.Ct.?2160]?[Nobles];?Schmerber?v.?California?(1966)?384?U.S.?757,?761?[16?L.Ed.2d?908,?914,?86?S.Ct.?1826];?Doe?v.?United?States?(1988)?487?U.S.?201,?207?[101?L.Ed.2d?184,?194-195,?108?S.Ct.?2341].)fn.?4 Statutorily?mandated?discovery?of?evidence?that?meets?these?four?requirements?is?prohibited.?Conversely,?discovery?of?evidence?that?does?not?meet?each?of?these?requirements?is?not?barred?by?the?self-?incrimination?clause.?(See?Schmerber?v.?California,?supra,?384?U.S.?757,?761?[16?L.Ed.2d?908,?914].)?This?is?so?even?in?the?absence?of?special?state?interests?such?as?protection?against?easily?fabricated?”eleventh-hour”?defenses.?The?absence?of?particular?state?interests?in?disclosure?affects?none?of?these?four?requirements,?and?thus?cannot?itself?trigger?the?self-incrimination?clause.?(See?New?Jersey?v.?Portash?(1979)?440?U.S.?450,?459?[59?L.Ed.2d?501,?510,?99?S.Ct.?1292].) In?Williams,?supra,?399?U.S.?78,?the?high?court?held?that?discovery?of?the?names?and?addresses?of?a?defendant’s?alibi?witnesses?is?not?”compelled”?self-incrimination,?and?therefore?does?not?violate?the?Fifth?Amendment.?(Id.?[54?Cal.3d?367]?at?p.?85?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?452].)?The?court?reasoned,?”At?most,?the?rule?only?compelled?[defendant]?to?accelerate?the?timing?of?his?disclosure,?by?forcing?him?to?divulge?at?an?earlier?date?information?that?the?[defendant]?from?the?beginning?planned?to?divulge?at?trial.”?(Ibid.?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?452],?italics?added.)?Thus,?discovery?of?the?names?and?addresses?of?the?witnesses?that?the?defense?intends?to?call?at?trial,?whether?or?not?in?support?of?an?alibi?defense,?merely?forces?the?defendant?”to?divulge?at?an?earlier?date?information?that?the?[defendant]?from?the?beginning?planned?to?divulge?at?trial.”?(Ibid.?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?452].)?Under?the?rationale?of?Williams,?such?discovery?does?not?constitute?compelled?self-incrimination,?and?therefore?does?not?implicate?the?privilege.fn.?5 [2a]?We?thus?address?petitioner’s?second?contention,?that?insofar?as?section?1054.3?requires?the?defense?to?disclose?before?trial?any?statements?of?the?witnesses?it?intends?to?call?at?trial,?that?section?violates?the?self-incrimination?clause.?Once?again,?decisions?of?the?Supreme?Court?compel?a?contrary?conclusion. Compelled?disclosure?of?the?statements?of?defense?witnesses?does?not?meet?all?of?the?requirements?necessary?to?implicate?the?self-incrimination?clause.?We?agree?with?petitioner?that?the?acceleration?doctrine?of?Williams?discussed?above?is?not?dispositive?here,?for?it?is?not?a?matter?of?merely?forcing?the?defendant?”to?divulge?at?an?earlier?date?information?that?the?[defendant]?from?the?beginning?planned?to?divulge?at?trial.”?(Williams,?supra,?399?U.S.?78,?85?[26?L.Ed.2d?446,?452].)?Some?statements?of?witnesses?the?defense?intends?to?call?might?never?be?offered?at?trial?by?the?defense.?Thus,?to?the?extent?that?the?statements?are?incriminating,?such?incrimination?is?indeed?compelled.?And?clearly?such?statements?are?”testimonial?or?communicative?in?nature.”?(See?Schmerber?v.?California,?supra,?384?U.S.?757,?761?[16?L.Ed.2d?908,?914].)?Such?statements?are?not,?however,?”personal?to?the?defendant.”?[54?Cal.3d?368] [3]?As?the?high?court?stated?in?Nobles,?supra,?422?U.S.?225,?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination?”?’is?a?personal?privilege:?it?adheres?basically?to?the?person,?not?to?information?that?may?incriminate?him.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?233?[45?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?150-151],?quoting?Couch?v.?United?States?(1973)?409?U.S.?322,?327?[34?L.Ed.2d?548,?553-554,?93?S.Ct.?611],?italics?in?original.)?In?Nobles,?the?court?rejected?a?self-incrimination?challenge?to?a?trial?court?order?requiring?the?defense?to?disclose?its?investigator’s?report?of?statements?made?by?prosecutorial?witnesses?once?the?defense?called?its?investigator?as?a?trial?witness. In?Nobles?the?high?court?reasoned:?”The?fact?that?these?statements?of?third?parties?were?elicited?by?a?defense?investigator?on?[defendant’s]?behalf?does?not?convert?them?into?[defendant’s]?personal?communications.?Requiring?their?production?from?the?investigator?therefore?would?not?in?any?sense?compel?[defendant]?to?be?a?witness?against?himself?or?extort?communications?from?him.”?(Nobles,?supra,?422?U.S.?225,?234?[45?L.Ed.2d?141,?151].)?The?court?concluded,?”the?Fifth?Amendment?privilege?against?compulsory?self-incrimination,?being?personal?to?the?defendant,?does?not?extend?to?the?testimony?or?statements?of?third?parties?called?as?witnesses?at?trial.”?(Ibid.?[45?L.Ed.2d?141,?151].) The?high?court’s?reasoning?in?Nobles?is?controlling?here.?Section?1054.3?requires?disclosure?by?the?defense?of?statements,?and?reports?of?statements,?of?”persons,?other?than?defendant,”?that?the?defense?intends?to?call?as?witnesses?at?trial.?[2b]?Thus,?the?compelled?statements?are?those?of?”third?parties”?within?the?meaning?of?Nobles?and?are?therefore?outside?of?the?scope?of?the?self-incrimination?clause.?(Nobles,?supra,?422?U.S.?225,?234?[45?L.Ed.2d?141,?151].)fn.?6 Petitioner?attempts?to?distinguish?Nobles,?noting?that?the?Supreme?Court?has?never?upheld?disclosure?of?statements?of?defense?witnesses?before?trial.fn.?7?He?further?observes?that?the?Federal?Rules?of?Criminal?Procedure?provide?for?disclosure?of?statements?of?defense?witnesses?only?after?they?testify?at?trial,?citing?rule?26?of?the?Federal?Rules?of?Criminal?Procedure?(18?U.S.C.). Here?again?petitioner’s?argument?misinterprets?the?scope?of?the?self-?incrimination?clause.?The?timing?of?the?disclosure,?whether?before?or?during?[54?Cal.3d?369]?trial,?does?not?affect?any?of?the?four?requirements?that?together?trigger?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination,?and?therefore?cannot?implicate?the?privilege.?The?acceleration?doctrine?of?Williams,?supra,?399?U.S.?78,?compels?this?conclusion.?We?conclude?that?statements?of?the?witnesses?that?the?defense?intends?to?call?at?trial?are?not?personal?to?the?defendant,?and?therefore?compelled?discovery?of?such?statements?does?not?implicate?the?self-incrimination?clause.fn.?8 Having?concluded?that?application?of?the?discovery?provisions?enacted?by?Proposition?115?does?not?violate?petitioner’s?Fifth?Amendment?privilege?against?self-incrimination,?we?turn?now?to?the?privilege?under?the?state?Constitution. State?Constitutional?Challenge.?Section?15?of?article?I?of?the?California?Constitution?(hereafter?article?I,?section?15)?guarantees?the?defendant?in?a?criminal?case?certain?procedural?rights,?including?the?right?not?to?be?compelled?to?testify?against?oneself.?This?court?relied?on?that?provision?in?Misener,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?543,?to?invalidate?former?Penal?Code?section?1102.5,?which?permitted?the?prosecution?to?discover?from?the?defendant,?following?testimony?on?direct?examination?of?defense?witnesses?other?than?the?defendant,?prior?statements?made?by?those?witnesses.?[4a]?Petitioner?asserts?the?new?discovery?chapter?is?unconstitutional?under?our?decisions?in?Misener?and?other?cases?interpreting?the?state?constitutional?privilege?against?self-?incrimination. Misener,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?543,?was?preceded?by?a?long?line?of?decisions?of?this?court?on?the?subject?of?prosecutorial?discovery,?beginning?with?Jones?v.?Superior?Court?(1962)?58?Cal.2d?56[22?Cal.Rptr.?879,?372?P.2d?919,?96?A.L.R.2d?1213]?(Jones;?holding?that?pretrial?discovery?by?prosecution?of?identities?and?written?reports?of?expert?witnesses?defendant?intends?to?call?at?trial?does?not?violate?state?self-incrimination?clause?or?attorney-client?privilege).?It?is?appropriate?that?our?analysis?of?the?state?Constitution?begin?with?the?observation?of?then-Justice?Traynor?in?Jones?that?”absent?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination?or?other?privileges?provided?by?law,?the?defendant?in?a?criminal?case?has?no?valid?interest?in?denying?the?prosecution?access?to?evidence?that?can?throw?light?on?issues?in?the?case.”?(Jones,?supra,?58?Cal.2d?at?p.?59.)?In?Jones?the?court?concluded?that?discovery,?functioning?so?as?to?[54?Cal.3d?370]?promote?”the?orderly?ascertainment?of?truth,”?”should?not?be?a?one-way?street.”?(Id.?at?p.?60.) The?two-way?street?envisioned?by?then-Justice?Traynor?in?Jones?was?short?lived?as?the?road?to?prosecutorial?discovery?was?effectively?closed?in?Prudhomme?v.?Superior?Court?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?320?[85?Cal.Rptr.?129,?466?P.2d?673]?(Prudhomme).?In?Prudhomme,?we?reasoned?that?”certain?significant?developments?in?the?law?since?Jones,”?including?a?decision?of?the?Supreme?Court?applying?the?Fifth?Amendment?privilege?against?self-incrimination?to?the?states?(Malloy?v.?Hogan?(1964)?378?U.S.?1?[12?L.Ed.2d?653,?84?S.Ct.?1489]),?and?the?high?court’s?”increasing?emphasis?upon?the?role?played?by”?that?privilege,?were?cause?to?reexamine?the?policies?underlying?prosecutorial?discovery.?(Prudhomme,?supra,?2?Cal.3d?at?p.?323.)?Prudhomme,?essentially?limiting?Jones?to?its?facts,?reasoned?that?the?focus?must?be?whether?the?compelled?discovery?”conceivably?might?lighten?the?prosecution’s?burden?of?proving?its?case?in?chief”?and?held?that?the?privilege?”forbids?compelled?disclosures?which?could?serve?as?a?’link?in?a?chain’?of?evidence?tending?to?establish?guilt?of?a?criminal?offense.”?(Id.?at?p.?326.)?Accordingly,?Prudhomme?annulled?a?discovery?order?that?would?have?required?the?defendant?to?disclose?to?the?prosecution?the?names,?addresses?and?expected?testimony?of?all?witnesses?he?intended?to?call?at?trial.?(Id.?at?p.?328.) The?federal?trend?that?we?perceived?in?Prudhomme,?supra,?2?Cal.3d?320,?was?abruptly?terminated?two?months?later?by?the?high?court’s?decision?in?Williams,?supra,?399?U.S.?78,?upholding?Florida’s?notice-of-alibi?rule?against?a?Fifth?Amendment?self-incrimination?challenge.?Thereafter,?in?a?case?addressing?the?validity?of?a?nonstatutory?discovery?order?requiring?the?defense?to?disclose?to?the?prosecution?the?names?and?addresses?of?the?witnesses?it?would?call,?we?retained?the?Prudhomme?rule,?resting?it?on?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination?contained?in?the?California?Constitution.?(Reynolds?v.?Superior?Court?(1974)?12?Cal.3d?834?[117?Cal.Rptr.?437,?528?P.2d?45]?[Reynolds].)?We?stated?in?Reynolds,?”it?cannot?be?gainsaid?that?Prudhomme?put?this?court?on?record?as?being?considerably?more?solicitous?of?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination?than?federal?law?currently?requires.”?(Id.?at?p.?843;?see?also?Allen?v.?Superior?Court?(1976)?18?Cal.3d?520,?524-526?[134?Cal.Rptr.?774,?557?P.2d?65]?[invalidating?court?order?requiring?disclosure?by?defendant?of?prospective?witnesses,?so?jurors?could?ascertain?whether?they?were?acquainted?with?them,?as?violative?of?state?privilege?against?self-incrimination?in?absence?of?finding?that?such?disclosure?could?not?possibly?tend?to?incriminate?defendant?or?lessen?prosecution’s?burden?of?proof].) Any?possibility?that?the?state?privilege?against?self-incrimination?would?nonetheless?permit?some?form?of?prosecutorial?discovery?was?eliminated?in?[54?Cal.3d?371]?Misener,?supra,?38?Cal.3d?543,?in?which?we?struck?down?the?Legislature’s?attempt?to?fashion?a?reciprocal?discovery?statute,?reasoning?that?to?the?extent?a?compelled?disclosure?is?useful?to?the?prosecution’s?case,?it?violates?the?defendant’s?state?constitutional?privilege?against?self-incrimination. The?foregoing?cases?represented?the?state?of?the?law?facing?the?voters?in?June?1990?when?they?voted?to?amend?the?California?Constitution.?As?discussed?above,?Proposition?115?added?article?I,?section?30(c)?to?the?California?Constitution,?providing?that?”discovery?in?criminal?cases?shall?be?reciprocal?in?nature,?as?prescribed?by?the?Legislature?or?by?the?people?through?the?initiative?process.”?The?concept?of?”reciprocal”?discovery?mandated?by?article?I,?section?30(c)?is?inherently?inconsistent?with?the?roadblock?to?prosecutorial?discovery?created?by?our?earlier?interpretations?of?the?state?constitutional?privilege?against?self-incrimination?as?developed?in?the?Prudhomme?line?of?cases.?Thus,?in?resolving?this?inconsistency?we?must?apply?principles?of?constitutional?interpretation. [5]?Rudimentary?principles?of?construction?dictate?that?when?constitutional?provisions?can?reasonably?be?construed?so?as?to?avoid?conflict,?such?a?construction?should?be?adopted.?(Serrano?v.?Priest?(1971)?5?Cal.3d?584,?596?[96?Cal.Rptr.?601,?487?P.2d?1241,?41?A.L.R.3d?1187];?see?also?Lungren?v.?Deukmejian?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?727,?735?[248?Cal.Rptr.?115,?755?P.2d?299].)?As?a?means?of?avoiding?conflict,?a?recent,?specific?provision?is?deemed?to?carve?out?an?exception?to?and?thereby?limit?an?older,?general?provision.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Valentine?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?170,?181?[228?Cal.Rptr.?25,?720?P.2d?913];?Serrano?v.?Priest,?supra,?5?Cal.3d?at?p.?596;?People?v.?Western?Airlines,?Inc.?(1954)?42?Cal.2d?621,?637?[268?P.2d?723].)?[4b]?Therefore,?to?the?extent?that?the?Prudhomme?line?of?cases?impeded?reciprocal?discovery,?article?I,?section?30(c)?must?be?seen?as?abrogating?those?cases,?and?limiting?the?scope?of?the?state?constitutional?privilege?against?self-incrimination?as?it?relates?to?reciprocal?discovery.?(See?People?v.?Valentine,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?181.)fn.?9?Article?I,?section?30(c)?constitutes?a?specific?exception?to?the?broad?[54?Cal.3d?372]?privilege?against?self-?incrimination?set?forth?in?article?I,?section?15?of?the?California?Constitution.?(Ibid.) Such?an?interpretation?gives?effect?to?the?intent?of?the?voters?in?passing?Proposition?115.?[6]?The?manifest?intent?behind?the?measure?was?to?reopen?the?two-way?street?of?reciprocal?discovery.?The?preamble?to?Proposition?115?states?that?”comprehensive?reforms?are?needed?to?restore?balance?and?fairness?to?our?criminal?justice?system.”?(Prop.?115,???1(a),?italics?added.)?In?order?to?accomplish?this?goal,?the?voters?intended?to?remove?the?roadblock?to?prosecutorial?discovery?created?by?our?interpretations?of?the?state?constitutional?privilege?against?self-?incrimination?as?developed?in?the?Prudhomme?line?of?cases.?The?preamble?further?states,?”In?order?to?address?these?concerns?and?to?accomplish?these?goals,?we?the?people?further?find?that?it?is?necessary?to?reform?the?law?as?developed?in?numerous?California?Supreme?Court?decisions?….”?(Prop.?115,???1(b).) [4c]?We?note?the?California?Constitution?continues?to?afford?criminal?defendants?an?independent?source?of?protection?from?infringement?of?certain?rights,?including?the?privilege?against?self-incrimination.?(See?Raven,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?336?[invalidating?Prop.?115?to?extent?it?would?have?required?interpretation?of?state?constitutional?privilege?against?self-incrimination,?and?other?rights?of?criminal?defendants,?consistently?with?analogous?rights?in?federal?Constitution].)?These?general?rights?of?criminal?defendants,?however,?are?necessarily?limited?to?the?extent?they?are?inconsistent?with?article?I,?section?30(c),?pertaining?to?reciprocal?discovery.?(See?People?v.?Valentine,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?181.)?Thus,?petitioner’s?reliance?on?the?state?constitutional?privilege?against?self-incrimination?as?a?restriction?on?reciprocal?discovery?is?unavailing. Right?to?Due?Process?of?Law Petitioner?asserts?the?new?discovery?chapter?violates?his?right?to?due?process?of?the?law?under?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?of?the?United?States?Constitution.?We?disagree.?The?Fourteenth?Amendment?recites?in?pertinent?part:?”No?state?shall?…?deprive?any?person?of?life,?liberty,?or?property,?without?due?process?of?law?….” Reciprocity?Challenge.?[7]?The?foregoing?due?process?clause?has?little?to?say?about?the?amount?of?discovery?which?must?be?afforded?the?parties?in?a?criminal?prosecution.?(Wardius?v.?Oregon,?supra,?412?U.S.?470,?474[37?L.Ed.2d?82,?87]?[Wardius];?but?cf.?Brady?v.?Maryland?(1963)?373?U.S.?83?[10?L.Ed.2d?215,?83?S.Ct.?1194]?[Brady;?prosecutor?has?obligation?to?disclose?exculpatory?evidence].)?The?due?process?clause,?however,?”does?[54?Cal.3d?373]?speak?to?the?balance?of?forces?between?the?accused?and?his?accuser.”?(Wardius,?supra,?at?p.?474?[37?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?87],?italics?added.)?That?is,?when?the?prosecution?is?allowed?discovery?of?the?defense,?that?discovery?must?be?reciprocal.?(Ibid.?[37?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?87.].)?In?Wardius?the?Supreme?Court?held?that?under?the?due?process?clause,?a?criminal?defendant?cannot?be?compelled?by?discovery?procedures?to?reveal?his?alibi?defense?in?the?absence?of?fair?notice?that?he?would?have?the?opportunity?to?discover?the?prosecution’s?rebuttal?witnesses. [8]?Petitioner?asserts?the?new?discovery?chapter?fails?on?its?face?to?provide?for?reciprocal?discovery?as?required?by?the?due?process?clause.?Properly?construed,?we?conclude?that?the?new?discovery?chapter?affords?defendants?sufficient?rights?of?reciprocal?discovery?to?meet?the?requirements?of?the?due?process?clause.?At?the?outset?we?note?that,?for?two?reasons,?our?interpretation?of?the?statutory?scheme?should?favor?an?implicit?requirement?of?reciprocity. First,?article?I,?section?30(c),?the?new?constitutional?provision?enacted?contemporaneously?with?the?new?discovery?chapter,?expressly?provides?that?”discovery?in?criminal?cases?shall?be?reciprocal?in?nature,?as?prescribed?by?the?Legislature?or?by?the?People?through?the?initiative?process.”?It?follows?that?the?voters,?in?requiring?that?any?initiative?prescribing?that?discovery?in?criminal?cases?be?”reciprocal?in?nature,”?would?naturally?intend?that?their?contemporaneous?enactment?of?a?discovery?scheme?for?criminal?cases?would?in?fact?provide?for?such?reciprocity. Second,?turning?to?the?statutory?enactment?itself,?Penal?Code?section?1054?(section?1054)?expressly?provides?that?the?entire?new?discovery?chapter?”shall?be?interpreted?to?give?effect?to?all?of?the?following?purposes,”?including?the?provision?that?”no?discovery?shall?occur?in?criminal?cases?except?as?provided?by?this?chapter,?other?express?statutory?provisions,?or?as?mandated?by?the?Constitution?of?the?United?States.”?(??1054,?subd.?(e),?italics?added.)?Given?that?the?due?process?clause?mandates?reciprocity?when?the?prosecution?obtains?discovery?materials?from?the?defense?(Wardius,?supra,?412?U.S.?470),?and?given?that?the?new?discovery?chapter?provides?for?prosecutorial?discovery?of?defense?evidence?(see?Pen.?Code,???1054.1?[section?1054.1]),fn.?10?it?follows?that?the?new?discovery?chapter?should,?if?possible,?be?interpreted?as?providing?such?reciprocity.?[54?Cal.3d?374] […]
