Articles Tagged: 820 P.2d 600

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.) Hawkins?represented?the?state?of?the?law?in?June?1990,?when?the?voters?enacted?Proposition?115,?thereby?amending?the?California?Constitution.?[1?Cal.4th?41]?[1a]?Proposition?115?added?section?14.1?to?article?I?of?the?California?Constitution?(article?I,?section?14.1),?which?expressly?states:?”If?a?felony?is?prosecuted?by?indictment,?there?shall?be?no?postindictment?preliminary?hearing.”?The?issue?we?address?in?this?case?is?whether,?following?the?enactment?of?Proposition?115,?an?indicted?defendant?is?entitled?to?or?may?receive?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?under?the?federal?and?state?Constitutions. III.?Discussion   Federal?Constitutional?Issues We?first?discuss?the?issues?raised?under?the?United?States?Constitution,?namely,?whether?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?mandates?that?an?indicted?defendant?have?the?opportunity?to?receive?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?and?the?concomitant?rights?that?attach?when?prosecution?is?by?information.?We?conclude?that?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?mandates?no?such?procedure. [2]?Federal?courts,?including?the?United?States?Supreme?Court,?have?long?held?that?the?due?process?clause?of?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?does?not?require?a?state?to?afford?preliminary?hearings?to?criminal?defendants?in?the?first?instance.?(See,?e.g.,?Lem?Woon?v.?Oregon?(1913)?229?U.S.?586,?590?[57?L.Ed.?1340,?1342,?33?S.Ct.?783];?see?also?Gerstein?v.?Pugh?(1975)?420?U.S.?103,?118-119?[43?L.Ed.2d?54,?67-68,?95?S.Ct.?854];?United?States?v.?Farries?(3d?Cir.?1972)?459?F.2d?1057,?1061-1062;?Rivera?v.?Government?of?Virgin?Islands?(3d?Cir.?1967)?375?F.2d?988,?989-990;?Fed.?Rules?Crim.?Proc.,?rule?5(c),?18?U.S.C.) [3a]?Nor?is?the?Fourteenth?Amendment’s?guarantee?of?equal?protection?of?the?laws?violated?by?a?system?in?which?defendants?prosecuted?by?indictment?are?not?afforded?a?preliminary?hearing?and?the?concomitant?rights?that?attach?when?prosecution?is?by?information.?Nearly?every?state?and?federal?court?that?has?considered?this?federal?equal?protection?issue?has?come?to?the?same?conclusion.?(See,?e.g.,?United?States?ex?rel.?Kline?v.?Lane?(N.D.Ill.?1989)?707?F.Supp.?368;?United?States?v.?Simon?(E.D.Pa.?1981)?510?F.Supp.?232;?State?v.?Clark?(1981)?291?Ore.?231?[630?P.2d?810],?cert.?den.?454?U.S.?1084?[70?L.Ed.2d?619,?102?S.Ct.?640];?State?v.?Robinson?(Del.?1980)?417?A.2d?953;?United?States?v.?Shober?(E.D.Pa.?1979)?489?F.Supp.?393;?People?v.?Franklin?(1979)?80?Ill.App.3d?128?[35?Ill.?Dec.?121,?398?N.E.2d?1071];?Seim?v.?State?(1979)?95?Nev.?89?[590?P.2d?1152];?State?v.?Reiman?(S.D.?1979)?284?N.W.2d?860;?Lataille?v.?District?Court?of?Eastern?Hampden?(1974)?366?Mass.?525?[320?N.E.2d?877];?Chung?v.?Ogata?(Hawaii?1972)?495?P.2d?26;?Commonwealth?v.?McCloskey?(1971)?443?Pa.?117?[277?A.2d?764],?cert.?den.?404?[1?Cal.4th?42]?U.S.?1000?[30?L.Ed.2d?552,?92?S.Ct.?559].?But?see?People?v.?Duncan?(1972)?388?Mich.?489?[201?N.W.2d?629]?[providing?all?felony?defendants?preliminary?hearings?under?court’s?inherent?supervisory?power?in?area?of?criminal?procedure].) [4]?In?analyzing?a?claim?based?on?the?Fourteenth?Amendment’s?guarantee?of?equal?protection?of?the?laws,?we?must?first?determine?the?appropriate?standard?of?review.?(Dunn?v.?Blumstein?(1972)405?U.S.?330,?335?[31?L.Ed.2d?274,?280,?92?S.Ct.?995].)?The?proper?standard?of?review,?as?developed?by?the?high?court,?depends?upon?the?classification?involved?in,?and?interests?affected?by,?the?challenged?law.?(Ibid.)?The?challenged?law?will?be?subject?to?strict?scrutiny?only?if?it?operates?to?the?peculiar?disadvantage?of?a?suspect?class?(see,?e.g.,?Loving?v.?Virginia?(1967)?388?U.S.?1?[18?L.Ed.2d?1010,?87?S.Ct.?1817])?or?impinges?on?a?fundamental?right?(see,?e.g.,?Dunn?v.?Blumstein,?supra,?405?U.S.?330). The?determination?of?whether?a?suspect?class?exists?focuses?on?whether?”[t]he?system?of?alleged?discrimination?and?the?class?it?defines?have?[any]?of?the?traditional?indicia?of?suspectness:?[such?as?a?class]?saddled?with?such?disabilities,?or?subjected?to?such?a?history?of?purposeful?unequal?treatment,?or?relegated?to?such?a?position?of?political?powerlessness?as?to?command?extraordinary?protection?from?the?majoritarian?political?process.”?(San?Antonio?School?Dist.?v.?Rodriguez?(1973)?411?U.S.?1,?28?[36?L.Ed.2d?16,?39-40,?93?S.Ct.?1278].)?[3b]?Clearly,?the?system?of?prosecution?contemplated?by?article?I,?sections?14?and?14.1?of?the?California?Constitution?does?not?single?out?a?suspect?class?within?the?meaning?of?this?definition.?(See?United?States?ex?rel.?Kline?v.?Lane,?supra,?707?F.Supp.?at?p.?373.) Nor?does?the?denial?of?the?preliminary?hearing?procedure?implicate?a?fundamental?right?under?the?United?States?Constitution.?(See?United?States?ex?rel.?Kline?v.?Lane,?supra,?707?F.Supp.?368;?see?also?Gerstein?v.?Pugh,?supra,?420?U.S.?103;?Lem?Woon?v.?Oregon,?supra,?229?U.S.?586.)?To?the?contrary,?the?use?of?the?grand?jury?indictment?without?a?preliminary?hearing?in?cases?involving?serious?punishment?was?the?rule?at?common?law.?(See?Smith?v.?United?States?(1959)?360?U.S.?1,?9[3?L.Ed.2d?1041,?1047-1048,?79?S.Ct.?991].)?Moreover,?the?process?of?grand?jury?indictment?is?guaranteed?by?the?Fifth?Amendment?in?certain?prosecutions?in?federal?courts,?showing?”the?high?place?[the?system?of?grand?jury?indictment]?held?as?an?instrument?of?justice.”?(Costello?v.?United?States?(1956)?350?U.S.?359,?362?[100?L.Ed.?397,?401-402,?76?S.Ct.?406].)?It?would?be?anomalous?for?this?court?to?construe?this?constitutionally?sanctioned?felony?charging?procedure?as?somehow?the?very?mechanism?that?denies?defendants?fundamental?rights?under?the?United?States?Constitution.?(See?United?States?ex?rel.?Kline?v.?Lane,?supra,?707?F.Supp.?368,?373.)?[1?Cal.4th?43] Therefore,?because?the?state’s?denial?of?preliminary?hearings?to?indicted?defendants?neither?works?to?the?disadvantage?of?a?suspect?class?nor?encroaches?on?a?fundamental?right,?the?People?need?only?assert?a?rational?basis?for?the?enactment?of?article?I,?section?14.1,?in?seeking?to?establish?its?constitutionality.?”In?cases?where?a?classification?burdens?neither?a?suspect?group?nor?a?fundamental?interest,?’courts?are?quite?reluctant?to?overturn?governmental?action?on?the?ground?that?it?denies?equal?protection?of?the?laws.’?”?(Gregory?v.?Ashcroft?(1991)?501?U.S.?___,?___?[115?L.Ed.2d?410,?430,?111?S.Ct.?2395],?quoting?Vance?v.?Bradley?(1979)?440?U.S.?93,?97?[59?L.Ed.2d?171,?176,?99?S.Ct.?939];?see?also?Dallas?v.?Stanglin?(1989)?490?U.S.?19,?26?[104?L.Ed.2d?18,?26-27,?109?S.Ct.?1591.) Article?I,?section?14.1,?passes?federal?constitutional?muster?when?scrutinized?under?the?rational?basis?test.?We?perceive?an?abundance?of?legitimate?justifications?for?the?state’s?discretionary?use?of?the?indictment?procedure?to?initiate?felony?prosecutions.?Among?those?justifications?are?the?state’s?interests?in?”obtaining?a?pretrial?determination?of?probable?cause?without?unnecessarily?taxing?the?state’s?resources”?(United?States?ex?rel.?Kline?v.?Lane,?supra,?707?F.Supp.?at?p.?373)?and?creating?”a?system?in?which?justice?is?swift?and?fair”?(Prop.?115,???1,?subd.?(c),?Gen.?Elec.?(June?5,?1990)).?The?elimination?of?the?requirement?of?postindictment?preliminary?hearings?clearly?serves?these?goals.?fn.?3 These?legitimate?state?interests,?rationally?related?to?the?system?of?indictment?by?grand?jury?without?a?preliminary?hearing,?compel?our?conclusion?that?the?alternative?charging?procedure?contemplated?by?article?I,?sections?14?[1?Cal.4th?44]?and?14.1?of?the?California?Constitution?does?not?violate?the?Fourteenth?Amendment’s?guarantee?of?equal?protection?of?the?laws.?(See?United?States?ex?rel.?Kline?v.?Lane,?supra,?707?F.Supp.?368;?United?States?v.?Simon,?supra,?510?F.Supp.?232;?State?v.?Clark,?supra,?630?P.2d?810;?State?v.?Robinson,?supra,?417?A.2d?953;?United?States?v.?Shober,?supra,?489?F.Supp.?393;?People?v.?Franklin,?supra,?398?N.E.2d?1071;?Seim?v.?State,?supra,?590?P.2d?1152;?State?v.?Reiman,?supra,?284?N.W.2d?860;?Lataille?v.?District?Court?of?Eastern?Hampden,?supra,?320?N.E.2d?877;?Chung?v.?Ogata,?supra,?495?P.2d?26;?Commonwealth?v.?McCloskey,?supra,?277?A.2d?764.)?We?next?consider?whether?a?state?constitutional?right?to?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?has?survived?the?passage?of?article?I,?section?14.1. State?Constitutional?Issues [5a]?Petitioner’s?assertion?of?a?state?constitutional?right?to?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?is?based?solely?on?the?equal?protection?rationale?of?our?decision?in?Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?584.?He?maintains?the?Hawkins?holding?is?divisible?into?two?parts:?(1)?the?finding?of?an?equal?protection?violation,?and?(2)?the?remedy?created?by?the?court?in?response?to?that?violation.?According?to?petitioner,?article?I,?section?14.1?was?directed?solely?at?the?remedy?created?in?Hawkins,?not?the?underlying?finding?of?an?equal?protection?violation.?He?claims?the?sole?effect?of?article?I,?section?14.1,?if?valid,?is?to?eliminate?the?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?as?a?proper?remedy?for?the?equal?protection?violation?that?we?found?in?Hawkins. We?disagree?that?the?enactment?of?article?I,?section?14.1,?had?such?a?limited?effect.?The?only?reasonable?interpretation?of?Proposition?115?is?that?article?I,?section?14.1?was?purposefully?intended?to?abrogate?the?equal?protection?analysis?underlying?the?substantive?holding?of?Hawkins. The?express?mandate?of?article?I,?section?14.1-that?”[i]f?a?felony?is?prosecuted?by?indictment,?there?shall?be?no?postindictment?preliminary?hearing”-is?inherently?inconsistent?with?this?court’s?interpretation?of?the?scope?of?the?state?equal?protection?clause?in?Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?584,?587.?(Cf.?Izazaga,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?at?p.?371?[Prop.?115’s?”reciprocal?discovery”?provisions?embodied?in?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???30,?subd.?(c)?inherently?inconsistent?with?this?court’s?previous?cases?prohibiting?all?prosecutorial?discovery?under?the?state?self-incrimination?clause].)?According?to?its?plain,?ordinary?meaning,?article?I,?section?14.1?bars?from?the?indictment?process?the?very?same?procedure?this?court?adopted?in?Hawkins;?namely,?the?postindictment?preliminary?hearing.?The?inconsistency?between?the?new?constitutional?provision?and?this?court’s?previous?interpretation?of?an?indicted?defendant’s?rights?under?the?state?equal?protection?clause?is?inescapable.?Thus,?in?resolving?this?inconsistency?we?must?apply?well?settled?principles?of?constitutional?interpretation.?(Izazaga,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?at?p.?371.)?[1?Cal.4th?45] [6]?”[W]hen?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].)”?(Izazaga,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?at?p.?371.) [5b]?To?the?extent?Hawkins?mandates?that?an?indicted?defendant?be?afforded?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing,?the?voters’?adoption?of?article?I,?section?14.1?must?be?seen?as?abrogating?that?holding,?and?limiting?the?scope?of?the?state?constitutional?right?of?equal?protection?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???7)?as?it?relates?to?the?constitutionally?mandated?indictment?process.?(Cf.?Izazaga,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?at?p.?371;?People?v.?Valentine,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?170,?181.)?Similarly,?article?I,?section?14.1,?also?limits?and?thereby?precludes?a?challenge?based?on?the?due?process?clause?contained?in?article?I,?section?7?of?the?California?Constitution,?an?issue?not?reached?by?the?court?in?Hawkins.?(See?Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?584,?586.)?fn.?4 This?interpretation?gives?full?effect?to?the?intent?of?the?electorate?in?passing?Proposition?115?and?article?I,?section?14.1.?The?manifest?intent?behind?the?measure?was?to?prohibit?preliminary?hearings?in?criminal?cases?prosecuted?by?indictment.?The?voters’?intent?is?clear?from?the?words?of?article?I,?section?14.1.?Moreover,?this?prohibition?comports?with?the?general?intent?of?the?voters?”to?create?a?system?in?which?justice?is?swift?and?fair.?…”?(Prop.?115,???1,?subd.?(c).)?Proposition?115?plainly?contemplated?the?abrogation?of?Hawkins?as?well?as?other?past?decisions?of?this?court.?(See,?e.g.,?Izazaga,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?at?p.?372.)?The?preamble?to?Proposition?115?states?that?”comprehensive?reforms?are?needed?in?order?to?restore?balance?and?fairness?to?our?criminal?justice?system”?(Prop.?115,???1,?subd.?(a)),?and?that?”we?the?people?further?find?that?it?is?necessary?to?reform?the?law?as?developed?in?numerous?California?Supreme?Court?decisions.?…”?(Prop.?[1?Cal.4th?46]?115,???1,?subd.?(b).)?As?we?stated?in?Raven,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?336,?Proposition?115?adopted?”various?changes?in?procedural?or?substantive?law?previously?mandated?by?this?court.?For?example,?the?restriction?on?postindictment?preliminary?hearings?seems?directed?toward?our?holding?in?Hawkins?….”?(52?Cal.3d?at?p.?348.) We?therefore?conclude?that?article?I,?section?14.1,?as?enacted?by?the?voters?of?California,?has?abrogated?the?holding?of?Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?584,?such?that?an?indicted?defendant?is?no?longer?deemed?denied?the?equal?protection?of?the?laws?under?article?I,?section?7?of?the?California?Constitution,?by?virtue?of?the?defendant’s?failure?to?receive?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing. Having?rejected?petitioner’s?argument?that?article?I,?section?14.1?was?directed?solely?at?the?remedy?created?in?Hawkins?and?not?its?underlying?equal?protection?analysis,?we?must?likewise?reject?his?invitation?to?this?court?to?fashion?an?alternative?remedy?to?redress?the?equal?protection?violation?he?perceives?as?having?survived?the?enactment?of?article?I,?section?14.1. Petitioner?contends?we?could?fashion?a?”quasi-preliminary?hearing”?for?indicted?defendants.?According?to?petitioner,?the?quasi-preliminary?hearing?would?be?held?before?a?neutral?judicial?officer,?the?defendant?would?be?represented?by?counsel?and?permitted?to?present?exculpatory?evidence,?and?the?prosecutor?would?bear?the?burden?of?establishing?probable?cause?to?bind?the?defendant?over?for?the?alleged?offense. We?conclude?that?mandating?such?a?”quasi-preliminary?hearing”?following?indictment?by?grand?jury?would?be?unconstitutional?under?article?I,?section?14.1.?Our?primary?task?in?interpreting?constitutional?provisions?adopted?by?initiative?is?to?determine?and?give?effect?to?the?intent?of?the?voters.?(See?Kaiser?v.?Hopkins?(1936)?6?Cal.2d?537,?538?[58?P.2d?1278].)?To?do?so,?a?constitutional?provision?should?not?be?construed?so?as?to?undermine?its?validity.?(ITT?World?Communications,?Inc.?v.?City?and?County?of?San?Francisco?(1985)?37?Cal.3d?859,?865?[210?Cal.Rptr.?226,?693?P.2d?811]?[ITT?World?Communications].)?Article?I,?section?14.1?prohibits?”postindictment?preliminary?hearing[s].”?This?prohibition?necessarily?includes?postindictment?quasi-preliminary?hearings,?as?well?as?all?other?procedures?that?closely?resemble?preliminary?hearings,?irrespective?of?the?legal?nomenclature?under?which?such?procedures?are?cloaked.?To?hold?otherwise?would?render?meaningless?the?language?of?article?I,?section?14.1,?and?thereby?subvert?the?intent?of?the?voters?in?passing?Proposition?115.?(See?ITT?World?Communications,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?865.) Petitioner?also?asserts?that?this?court?could?remedy?the?perceived?equal?protection?violation?by?simply?striking?down?all?grand?jury?indictments.?This?[1?Cal.4th?47]?would?force?prosecutors?to?refile?all?indictments?as?complaints?and?would?effectively?eliminate?the?grand?jury?system?as?a?means?of?charging?defendants?in?the?courts?of?this?state. The?conclusion?we?have?reached?respecting?the?scope?of?article?I,?section?14.1,?obviates?the?necessity?to?further?consider?this?proposal.?We?note,?however,?that?it?is?entirely?unjustifiable;?striking?down?all?grand?jury?indictments?was?patently?not?the?intent?of?the?voters?in?adopting?Proposition?115.?(See?Kaiser?v.?Hopkins,?supra,?6?Cal.2d?537,?538.)?If?the?voters?intended?to?eliminate?grand?jury?indictments?through?the?adoption?of?article?I,?section?14.1,?it?would?be?illogical?to?include?in?that?very?provision?language?that?contemplates?the?continued?vitality?of?the?grand?jury?indictment?process?in?the?courts?of?this?state?(“If?a?felony?is?prosecuted?by?indictment,?there?shall?be?no?postindictment?preliminary?hearing.”).?Moreover,?a?constitutional?provision?generally?should?not?be?construed?to?impliedly?repeal?another?constitutional?provision.?(ITT?World?Communications,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?865.)?Striking?all?grand?jury?indictments?as?unconstitutional?would?render?without?effect?article?I,?section?14?(ante,?at?p.?40,?fn.?1)-the?provision?of?the?state?Constitution?that?explicitly?sanctions?prosecution?of?felony?cases?by?grand?jury?indictment.?(See?Hawkins,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?593.)?fn.?5 Petitioner’s?reliance?on?In?re?Lance?W.?(1985)?37?Cal.3d?873?[210?Cal.Rptr.?631,?694?P.2d?744]?(Lance?W.)?is?also?misplaced.?In?Lance?W.,?we?were?called?on?to?determine?the?effect?of?a?new?constitutional?provision?enacted?by?Proposition?8,?providing?that?”?’relevant?evidence?shall?not?be?excluded?in?any?criminal?proceeding?….’?”?(Lance?W.,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?879.)?We?held?the?new?constitutional?provision?did?not?affect?the?substantive?scope?of?the?state?Constitution’s?search?and?seizure?prohibitions,?but?merely?abrogated?the?”judicially?created?remedy?for?violations?of?the?search?and?seizure?provisions?of?the?federal?or?state?Constitutions,?through?the?exclusion?of?evidence?so?obtained,?except?to?the?extent?that?exclusion?remains?federally?compelled.”?(Id.,?at?pp.?886-887,?italics?in?original.)?Petitioner?asserts?article?I,?section?14.1?similarly?eliminated?only?the?remedy?announced?in?Hawkins,?not?the?underlying?constitutional?violation. Here,?however,?the?manifest?intent?of?the?voters?in?enacting?article?I,?section?14.1?was?to?abrogate?the?Hawkins?court’s?finding?of?an?equal?[1?Cal.4th?48]?protection?violation?when?indicted?defendants?are?denied?a?preliminary?hearing.?The?Hawkins?remedy?serves?no?purpose?other?than?to?vindicate?the?indicted?defendant’s?equal?protection?rights?as?perceived?in?that?opinion.?In?short,?the?right?and?remedy?in?Hawkins?are?not?severable,?and?Lance?W.?is?therefore?inapposite. [7]?Last,?petitioner?claims?the?equal?protection?analysis?of?Hawkins?survives?Proposition?115?in?light?of?our?decision?in?Raven,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?336.?Section?3?of?Proposition?115?sought?to?amend?article?I,?section?24?of?the?California?Constitution?by?adding?language?that?certain?enumerated?state?constitutional?rights?of?criminal?defendants,?including?the?right?to?equal?protection?of?the?laws,?shall?be?construed?consistently?with?the?federal?Constitution.?(See?Raven,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?336,?350.)?Section?3?of?Proposition?115?further?provided?that?the?state?Constitution?could?not?be?construed?to?afford?criminal?or?juvenile?defendants?greater?rights?than?those?afforded?by?the?federal?Constitution.?(Ibid.)?In?Raven,?we?held?that?section?3?of?Proposition?115?represented?an?invalid?revision?of?the?California?Constitution.?We?struck?and?severed?the?invalid?section?from?the?remainder?of?the?initiative?measure,?thereby?acknowledging?the?continued?independent?vitality?of?the?state?constitutional?rights?enumerated?therein.?(52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?351,?355-356.) Relying?on?Raven,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?336,?petitioner?argues?that?article?I,?section?14.1?is?also?invalid?because?it?is?”functionally?dependent”?on?severed?section?3?of?Proposition?115.?He?claims?section?3?of?Proposition?115?attempted?to?limit?the?scope?of?the?state?equal?protection?clause?as?interpreted?in?Hawkins,?whereas?article?I,?section?14.1?merely?attempts?to?eliminate?the?remedy?created?in?Hawkins?in?response?to?the?equal?protection?violation. Petitioner’s?reliance?on?Raven?to?resurrect?the?holding?of?Hawkins?is?unavailing.?In?determining?the?intent?of?the?voters?in?adopting?a?constitutional?provision?by?initiative,?the?court?must?first?look?to?the?words?of?the?constitutional?provision?at?issue?and?need?look?no?further?if?the?answer?is?clear?and?unambiguous?in?the?natural?and?ordinary?meaning?of?its?words.?(See?Lungren?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?727,?735;?see?also?ITT?World?Communications,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?859,?865.)?Article?I,?section?14.1?is?clear?and?unambiguous:?”If?a?felony?is?prosecuted?by?indictment,?there?shall?be?no?postindictment?preliminary?hearing.”?The?natural?and?ordinary?meaning?of?the?provision?is?obvious:?it?prohibits?preliminary?hearings?following?grand?jury?indictment.?With?the?addition?of?article?I,?section?14.1?to?the?state?Constitution,?neither?the?Legislature?nor?the?courts,?unless?compelled?by?the?United?States?Constitution,?may?mandate?preliminary?hearings?in?felony?[1?Cal.4th?49]?matters?prosecuted?by?indictment.?(See?People?v.?Municipal?Court?(Runyan)?(1978)?20?Cal.3d?523,?528?[143?Cal.Rptr.?609,?574?P.2d?425,?2?A.L.R.4th?681].) We?find?nothing?in?the?structure?or?wording?of?article?I,?section?14.1?that?manifests?an?intent?on?the?part?of?the?voters?to?render?it?”functionally?dependent”?on?the?invalidated?section?3?of?Proposition?115.?To?the?contrary,?Proposition?115?contains?a?severance?clause?that?states:?”If?any?provision?of?this?measure?or?the?application?thereof?to?any?person?or?circumstances?is?held?invalid,?that?invalidity?shall?not?affect?other?provisions?or?applications?of?the?measure?which?can?be?given?effect?without?the?invalid?provision?or?application,?and?to?this?end?the?provisions?of?this?measure?are?severable.”?(Prop.?115,???29,?italics?added.)?The?intent?behind?the?severance?clause?is?clear.?In?Raven?we?stated,?”[t]he?remaining?provisions?of?Proposition?115?clearly?can?be?’given?effect’?without?regard?to?the?validity?or?operation?of”?invalidated?section?3?of?Proposition?115.?(Raven,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?355.)?Article?I,?section?14.1?has?not?been?invalidated?by?our?holding?in?Raven. Disposition [1b]?We?conclude?that?under?the?federal?and?state?Constitutions,?following?the?enactment?of?Proposition?115?by?the?voters?of?California,?an?indicted?defendant?is?not?entitled?to,?and?indeed?may?not?receive,?a?postindictment?preliminary?hearing?or?any?other?similar?procedure?in?the?courts?of?this?state. Accordingly,?the?alternative?writ?of?mandate?issued?by?this?court?on?May?1,?1991,?is?discharged,?and?the?peremptory?writ?is?denied.?The?order?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?affirmed. […]