820 P.2d 600, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 376 ROBERT BOWENS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real…
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.)…