State Supreme Court Defers Hearing on Crime Initiative

The state Supreme Court on Thursday refused, at least for now, to hear a broad constitutional attack on Proposition 115, the far-reaching anti-crime initiative approved by the voters June 5.

Instead, the justices, in a brief order, directed a state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles to review a legal challenge brought by the Los Angeles County public defender seeking to block implementation of the measure.

There was no immediate indication of when the appeals court would act on the suit. But whichever way that court rules, the issue is all but certain to return to the state high court for final resolution.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case now came as a disappointment to Assistant Public Defender David Meyer, who noted that there are hundreds of criminal cases in California--their number growing by the day--whose fate awaits the outcome of the court challenge.

The initiative, known as the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, amended the state Constitution to limit the rights of criminal defendants to those required by the U.S. Supreme Court under the federal Constitution. The measure also called for a series of changes in state law aimed at reducing delay in criminal proceedings.

The lawsuit, brought by Public Defender Wilbur F. Littlefield, sought a high-court order preventing the initiative from taking effect and a ruling declaring the measure unconstitutional.

The suit contended that the wide-ranging initiative violated a provision limiting ballot measures to a “single subject.” Also, the suit said, the proposition was so sweeping in impact that it amounted to a “revision” of the Constitution and thus could not be enacted by initiative.

Of more immediate concern was the suit’s further contention that even if the initiative were held constitutional, it still could not be applied to cases pending at the time it was approved by the voters, but only to cases involving crimes committed after the approval.

Littlefield’s suit argued that such application is barred by the initiative’s own terms--which make no mention of retroactive application--as well as the retroactivity prohibitions of the state and federal Constitutions.