Wide Use OKd for Speedy Trial Law : Prop. 115: High court says some provisions can be applied to crimes committed before passage.

In a far-reaching victory for prosecutors, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that the sweeping “speedy trial” provisions of Proposition 115 may be applied to crimes committed before the measure took effect last June 6.

The court, in a decision that could affect hundreds of pending cases, held 5 to 2 that the parts of the initiative that concern trial procedures--such as shorter preliminary hearings, swifter jury selection and new deadlines for attorneys--may all be imposed for crimes that occurred before passage. The limited portions of the proposition that directly help defendants also may be imposed retroactively, the court said.

But other provisions that hurt the defendant by increasing the punishment or defining a new crime--such as a new offense of torture--may be applied only to crimes occurring June 6 or later, the court said. State prosecutors had conceded that those non-procedural provisions could not be applied retroactively.

“On balance, considerations of administrative efficiency, as well as the electorate’s stated goals of reducing delay and unnecessary cost, favor giving Proposition 115 the earliest possible application,” Justice Edward A. Panelli wrote for the majority.

Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard issued sharp dissents, saying no provision of the measure should be applied before its effective date. Mosk noted that the initiative contained no provision for retroactive effect and said it was “inconceivable” that the voters intended to allow some parts to apply retroactively, but not others.

The ruling was welcomed by state Deputy Atty. Gen. Karen L. Ziskind as giving a “green light” to the use of the measure’s procedural provisions to hundreds of pending cases. “We’re thrilled about the ruling,” she said.

Tim Bazar, a Tulare County assistant public defender who challenged retroactive application, expressed disappointment but voiced hope that portions of the measure may be struck down by the high court in future cases.

“I can’t say this ruling today makes me feel any more confident,” Bazar said.

The decision marked the second time the justices have acted on the wide-ranging measure passed last June 5. Last December, the court invalidated a key provision that would have required state judges to follow the less-expansive rulings of the U. S. Supreme Court in applying 12 constitutional rights in criminal cases.

The remaining portions of the measure include an array of reforms aimed at reducing delays in the justice system and widening the scope of criminal punishment.

The initiative, among other things, denies preliminary hearings to defendants already charged by a grand jury; allows police officers to present hearsay testimony from witnesses and others at preliminary hearings; provides that judges--rather than attorneys--question prospective jurors, and requires attorneys to be ready for trial by certain deadlines.

Under Monday’s ruling, those and other procedural provisions can now be applied to cases involving crimes occurring before June 6.

The initiative also allowed the death penalty for accomplices in felony murders and allowed sentences of life without parole for convicted first-degree murderers ages 16 to 18. Those and other provisions that would “change the legal consequences” of a defendant’s acts may not be imposed retroactively, the court said Monday.

Since its passage, trial courts throughout the state have been widely divided over the issue--some reluctant to apply the measure’s procedural changes retroactively, and others willing to do so.

The case before the court was brought by attorneys for Robert Alan Tapia, who faces a death-penalty trial in Tulare County in the murder of a Three Rivers man in February, 1989.

The trial judge, applying Proposition 115, said he would conduct the questioning of prospective jurors, hoping to reduce the length of a process that could take up to six weeks if performed by the prosecution and defense attorneys.

Bazar, the assistant public defender, appealed to the state Supreme Court, saying there was nothing in the initiative allowing its application to pending cases and that such application would violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.

Pending before the high court are two cases that raise challenges to some of the individual provisions of Proposition 115.

In one challenge, defense attorneys are contesting the prosecution’s right to present hearsay testimony by a police officer at a preliminary hearing. In the other case, the defense is attacking the provision that requires defense attorneys to turn over to prosecutors the names of witnesses, reports by experts and results of scientific tests that will be used at trial.