California Supreme Court: Sb 1437 Constitutional Ruling

The California Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437), which amends the state's felony murder rule and accomplice liability. SB 1437 has faced legal challenges, with arguments centred on its potential conflict with voter-approved initiatives, the separation of powers, and existing criminal law provisions. While the Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of SB 1437, the California Supreme Court denied requests to review these cases in 2020, allowing the lower court's rulings to stand as precedent. However, the California Supreme Court has weighed in on the application of SB 1437 in specific cases, such as People v. Christopher Strong, indicating that special circumstance findings do not automatically preclude defendants from seeking relief under SB 1437. The Court's rulings in these cases provide insights into their interpretation and application of the law without directly addressing its constitutionality.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: Cases in Context [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$75 $359

Constitutional Law (Aspen Casebook)

$121.6 $269

6EP1437-3BA00

$470.25

1 Pcs 6EP1437-3BA10 New in Box 6EP1437-3BA10

$600

The California Supreme Court ruled that SB 1437 may apply to some special circumstances murder cases

On August 8, 2022, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v. Christopher Strong that some special circumstance findings in murder cases do not automatically preclude defendants from resentencing relief under SB 1437. The court's ruling specified that findings issued by a jury before Banks and Clark do not preclude a defendant from making a prima facie case for relief under Senate Bill 1437. This means that even if the trial evidence supported such findings under Banks and Clark, defendants are not automatically barred from seeking SB 1437 relief to vacate their convictions and receive reduced sentences.

SB 1437, passed in 2019, allows individuals convicted of certain murder charges to seek reduced sentences. The bill amended California Penal Code §188 and §189 and created Penal Code §1170.95, which define terms associated with murder charges and establish resentencing eligibility. The bill substantially altered accomplice liability for felony murder and murder by way of the natural and probable consequence doctrine, allowing those convicted to seek to vacate their murder convictions and obtain resentencing relief.

The California Supreme Court's ruling in the Strong case clarified that special circumstances do not automatically disqualify defendants from SB 1437 relief. This decision was based on the determination that the jury's decision in the case was made before the issuance of clarifying guidance in two other cases: People v. Banks (2015) and People v. Clark (2016). These cases provided additional factors for courts to consider when determining whether an individual is eligible for resentencing under SB 1437, including the defendant's role in planning the crime, their involvement with lethal weapons, and their awareness of the dangers posed by the nature of the crime.

The Strong case sets a precedent for individuals convicted of special circumstances felony murder to seek relief under SB 1437. It highlights the distinction drawn by the California Supreme Court between special circumstance felony murder cases, where defendants may be eligible for relief if they can demonstrate that they were not a substantial actor in the homicide or did not act with reckless indifference to human life. This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking to vacate their convictions and obtain reduced sentences under SB 1437.

The bill was passed in 2019 to allow individuals convicted of certain murder charges to get a reduced sentence

The California Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437), which was passed in 2019 to address certain murder charges and reduce sentences for individuals convicted under specific conditions. However, the Court's decisions in related cases provide insights into how it might view the bill's constitutionality.

SB 1437 substantially changed the law regarding accomplice liability under the felony murder rule and the doctrine of natural and probable consequences. It allows individuals convicted of felony-murder or murder to petition for resentencing if they meet certain criteria. The bill has been the subject of legal debate, with state prosecutors challenging it as an unconstitutional amendment to existing propositions and a violation of the separation of powers.

In November 2019, two cases related to SB 1437, People vs. the Superior Court of San Diego County/Gooden/Dominguez and People v. Lamoureux, were heard by the Fourth District Appellate Court. The court concluded that SB 1437 was constitutional and did not infringe on voter-approved initiatives or violate Marsy's Law, which broadened victims' rights. Associate Justice Terry O'Rourke dissented, arguing that SB 1437 was an unconstitutional amendment to existing propositions and violated the separation of powers.

The California Supreme Court denied requests to review the constitutionality of SB 1437 in February 2020, allowing the Fourth District Appellate Court's decisions to stand as case law precedents. This denial ended the debate over the bill's constitutionality and allowed cases seeking relief under SB 1437 to proceed.

In August 2022, the California Supreme Court ruled on a case, People v. Christopher Strong, which impacted SB 1437 petitions for individuals convicted of special circumstance murder. The Court held that special circumstance findings do not automatically disqualify defendants from seeking resentencing relief under SB 1437. This ruling clarified that even individuals found to be major participants who acted with reckless indifference to human life may be eligible for relief under the bill.

While the California Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the constitutionality of SB 1437, its decisions in related cases suggest that it does not view the bill as blatantly unconstitutional. The Court's denial of review requests allowed the lower court's rulings upholding the bill's constitutionality to stand and set a precedent for future cases. The Court's subsequent rulings in cases like People v. Christopher Strong further affirmed the applicability and scope of SB 1437 in providing resentencing relief for certain murder convictions.

The bill amends California's felony-murder rule

On September 30, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill No. 1437, which amends California's felony-murder rule. The bill amends Penal Code sections 188 and 189, and creates Penal Code section 1170.95.

SB 1437 redefines the law for felony-murder liability by excluding "a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." The bill effectively ends the role of the "natural and probable consequences" doctrine in murder cases. Under the old felony-murder rule, a person was guilty of "felony murder" if they participated in a serious felony, and a victim died during or as a result of the felony. There was no requirement that the convicted person was involved in the killing or intended for the killing to occur. For example, if during a robbery, five people are robbing a victim and one robber shoots the victim, then all five robbers would be guilty of "felony murder," even if they never wished or had any knowledge that a killing would occur.

Under the new felony-murder rule, a person can only be guilty of "felony murder" if they are the actual killer, acted with intent to kill, or encouraged the actual killer to kill the victim. The bill also specifies that the victim was a police officer killed on the job, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was a peace officer performing their duties. In determining whether a person was a major participant in a crime, the court may consider the defendant's role in planning the criminal enterprise, supplying or using lethal weapons, and their awareness of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals, Division One Court of California, determined that SB 1437 was constitutional in light of arguments relating to voter initiatives, the separation of powers, the finality of convictions, and Marsy's Law. The court found that SB 1437 does not invalidate or amend existing voter initiatives, violate the separation of powers doctrine, or infringe on victims' rights under Marsy's Law.

The bill was challenged as an unconstitutional amendment of Propositions 7 and 115

The California Supreme Court ruled that SB 1437 was constitutional in light of arguments relating to voter initiatives, the separation of powers, the finality of convictions, and Marsy's Law. The bill was challenged as an unconstitutional amendment of Propositions 7 and 115, which were voter-approved initiatives. The People's argument was based on Article II, Section 10 of the California Constitution, which states that "a statute enacted by voter initiative may be amended or repealed by the Legislature only with the approval of the electorate, unless the initiative statute provides otherwise." Since Props 7 and 115 were voter-approved initiatives, the People argued that the legislation should not amend the existing statute by taking away from it, prohibiting what an initiative authorizes, or authorizing what the initiative prohibits.

SB 1437 redefines the law for felony-murder liability by excluding "a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." The People argued that SB 1437 invalidly amended Prop. 7 and Prop. 115, claiming that it violated the separation of powers doctrine and Marsy's Law. Marsy's Law amended Article I, Section 28 of the California Constitution and provisions of the Penal Code to strengthen the rights of victims, including the "prompt and final conclusion" of cases.

The court, however, disagreed with the People's argument and cited their decision in the Gooden/Dominguez case in response to the claims of invalid amendments of Prop. 7 and Prop. 115. They also found that the separation of powers doctrine has never been applied rigidly. In conclusion, the appellate court determined that for a crime to exist, there must exist both a prohibited act and punishment, and SB 1437, which changes the elements of felony-murder, must affect punishments relating to felony-murder. Associate Justice Terry O'Rourke dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that SB 1437 is an unconstitutional amendment to Prop. 7 as it changes the definition of felony murder at the time the proposition was passed.

The California Supreme Court denied requests to review the SB 1437 constitutionality ruling

On February 19, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied requests to review the SB 1437 constitutionality ruling. The 4th DCA court's opinions stand as case law precedents concerning the constitutionality of SB 1437. The depublication request is particularly important as published opinions can be used as a precedent for other cases across California.

The People, represented by Christine Bannon, began the California Supreme Court review petition process in December 2019. Another request was filed in January 2020 for the depublication of the opinions. Both requests were denied. The Fourth District Court of Appeals, Division One Court of California, determined that SB 1437 was constitutional in light of arguments relating to voter initiatives, the separation of powers, the finality of convictions, and Marsy's Law.

SB 1437 redefines the law for felony-murder liability by excluding "a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." It also permits individuals convicted of felony-murder or murder to petition for resentencing.

In August 2022, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v. Christopher Strong that some special circumstance findings in murder cases do not automatically preclude defendants from resentencing relief under SB 1437. The Supreme Court is drawing a distinction among special circumstance felony murder cases. If the defendant was convicted before Banks and Clark, there is no automatic bar precluding defendants from seeking SB 1437 relief to vacate their conviction and get resentenced.

Frequently asked questions