539 P.3d 468
Cal.2023Background
- In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 21, which, among other things, added a gang-murder special circumstance subjecting certain gang-related first-degree murders to life without parole or the death penalty.
- Proposition 21 defined "criminal street gang" by cross-reference to Penal Code § 186.22(f), a provision that has been amended multiple times since its enactment.
- In 2021, Assembly Bill 333 (AB 333) substantially narrowed the statutory definition of "criminal street gang" and associated terms, affecting the scope of crimes subject to enhanced gang-related penalties.
- Fernando Rojas was convicted of first-degree murder with the gang-murder special circumstance prior to AB 333 and received life without parole; during his appeal, AB 333 passed.
- The Court of Appeal held AB 333’s new definitions could not apply retroactively to the gang-murder special circumstance, reasoning this would impermissibly amend Proposition 21 without a supermajority.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to decide if applying AB 333’s narrowed definitions to Proposition 21’s gang-murder special circumstance is an unconstitutional amendment of a voter initiative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AB 333’s narrowed definition of "criminal street gang" can be applied to Prop. 21’s gang-murder special circumstance | The reference to § 186.22(f) was time-specific; applying AB 333 narrows the conduct Prop. 21 sought to punish and illegally amends the initiative. | Prop. 21 was concerned with punishment, not locking in a static gang definition; later changes to § 186.22(f) are permissible. | Applying AB 333’s definition does not unlawfully amend Proposition 21; voters did not intend to "lock in" the 2000 definition of "criminal street gang." |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 2002) (discusses the meaning of legislative amendments to initiative statutes)
- People v. Shabazz, 38 Cal.4th 55 (Cal. 2006) (describes background and purpose of Proposition 21)
- In re Jovan B., 6 Cal.4th 801 (Cal. 1993) (distinguishes between specific and general statutory cross-references in context of legislative amendments)
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, 32 Cal.2d 53 (Cal. 1948) (articulates the "reference canon" in statutory interpretation)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (Legislature cannot take away rights granted by initiative statute)
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, 40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 2007) (voters are presumed aware of existing law at time of initiative enactment)