Prop. 21 Argued Before Justices

The California Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold a voter initiative that imposed new, stringent penalties on teenagers who commit crimes.

At least four of the court’s seven justices were skeptical of the arguments by opponents of Proposition 21 during a hearing in Los Angeles.

The court will rule on the measure’s constitutionality within 90 days. The decision on the initiative, passed by 62% of voters in March 2000, will affect thousands of juvenile offenders statewide.

“I think they are leaning our way,” said San Diego County Deputy Dist. Atty. Thomas F. McArdle, who argued in favor of the measure. “But you can’t be sure.”

Lawyers opposed to the law contended Wednesday that the sweeping juvenile justice measure violated a ban on initiatives that cover more than one subject. The 2000 Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative changed the juvenile court system, created a gang registration system and expanded the three-strikes sentencing law, which increased penalties for repeat offenders.

Opponents also argued that the law improperly gave prosecutors, instead of judges, the right to decide whether teenagers facing certain serious charges should be tried as adults and be subject to adult penalties.

Earlier this year, a state Court of Appeal in San Diego said that provision violated separation of powers doctrine because it usurped the power of judges to decide punishment.

But Justice Ming W. Chin said prosecutors frequently help shape a defendant’s sentence by the kinds of charges they file.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George agreed, and noted that ballot materials explicitly spelled out to voters that prosecutors would be allowed to decide whether certain accused offenders would face adult penalties.

“It’s quite clear that the voters understood that there would be no judicial review” of these decisions, George said.

Prior to Proposition 21, judges generally held hearings to determine whether a youthful offender would be tried in Superior Court or juvenile court. An offender in the juvenile system receives rehabilitation if found guilty and must be released by age 25.

If found guilty in Superior Court, for example, a youth who commits robbery with a gun faces 12 years in state prison. That same offender would receive only three years of detention if found responsible in a juvenile court.

The initiative did not change the law for juveniles who commit certain kinds of murders and sex crimes because they already were required to be tried as adults.

The Proposition 21 case before the court stemmed from an attack last year on five Mexican migrants. Eight juveniles from an affluent San Diego neighborhood allegedly chased and beat the migrants and used ethnic slurs. Four of the victims are in their 60s.

Prosecutors want to try the accused, ages 14 to 17 at the time of the attack, as adults. The trial has been postponed pending the Supreme Court decision in the case, Manduley vs. Superior Court, S095992.

William J. La Fond, representing Morgan Manduley, one of those accused in the attack, complained to the court that Proposition 21 failed to set standards for determining which kinds of cases belonged in adult court instead of the juvenile system.

“Process is important,” he told the court. “Process is to the law what the scientific method is to science.”

By allowing prosecutors to decide whether to try certain offenders as adults, the law gives them the right to decide the type of punishment they will be subject to, La Fond said.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown said the Legislature has the power to abolish the juvenile court system altogether, and questioned how opponents could argue that the system should not be merely “modified” by voters.

Only Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno asked questions critical of the measure.

Werdegar focused on arguments that Proposition 21 violated a constitutional ban on initiatives that cover multiple subjects.

She pointed to a provision that made continuing sexual abuse of a child a strike under the state’s three-strikes sentencing law. How does that provision relate to juveniles and gangs? she asked.

McArdle, of the San Diego County district attorney’s office, said the measure was an overall anti-crime initiative with a focus on juveniles and gangs.

“It’s a daisy chain of related provisions all designed to protect potential victims of crime,” he said.

George said he had read a report that found sexual abuse by juveniles to be a serious problem.

“Everything in [Proposition 21] does affect juveniles, even if it also affects adults,” the chief justice said.

Moreno, who recently was named to the court by Gov. Gray Davis, expressed uncertainty that voters knew what they were passing when they approved the initiative.

“Do you think voters understood they were making significant amendments to the three-strikes law?” he asked.

After the court hearing, Octavio and Debra Manduley, the parents of Morgan Manduley, 16, said their son did not deserve to face state prison.

Octavio Manduley, a Navy commander, read a statement saying Morgan “didn’t harm any of the victims” and is “well-adjusted and has a squeaky-clean record.”

Morgan, a high school sophomore, had just turned 15 when the attack occurred. He had spent the night with a friend and did not know most of those involved in the attack, his lawyer said.

The boy has said the attack was spontaneous and that he was too scared and intimidated to try to stop it or run away.