People v. May
44 Cal. 3d 309, 748 P.2d 307, 243 Cal. Rptr. 369 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California's 'Truth-in-Evidence' constitutional provision (Proposition 8) abrogates judicially created state constitutional exclusionary rules, such as the rule from People v. Disbrow, that afford criminal defendants greater protections than the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment purposes in California criminal proceedings, consistent with the federal standard set in Harris v. New York.
Facts:
- Janice F. placed a newspaper advertisement seeking a roommate for her condominium in Santa Barbara.
- A man identifying himself as 'Dennis' interviewed with Janice F. about the rental.
- The following day, the man returned to Janice F.'s condominium under the pretense of discussing the rental.
- Once inside, the man robbed Janice F. of two rings at gunpoint, handcuffed her, sexually assaulted her, and raped her.
- The defendant, May, was arrested by police in connection with the attack on Janice F. and a separate, similar assault on another woman, Laura Jestings.
- After police advised May of his Miranda rights, he immediately stated, 'Before I answer a thing I want an attorney present here...'
- Despite May's unambiguous request for counsel, police continued to interrogate him.
- During this interrogation, May made several incriminating statements, including that he was in Santa Barbara on the dates of the crimes, had visited a location near one of the attacks, and owned handcuffs and handguns.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged May in a California trial court with multiple felonies, including burglary, rape, and assault with a deadly weapon.
- Before trial, May filed a motion to exclude his statements to police for all purposes, including impeachment, under People v. Disbrow, on the grounds they were obtained after he invoked his right to counsel.
- The trial court denied the motion as to the use of the statements for impeachment, ruling that Proposition 8 required application of the federal standard from Harris v. New York.
- Following the court's ruling, May elected not to testify at his trial.
- A jury convicted May of the charged crimes.
- May, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction, holding that Proposition 8 had abrogated the Disbrow rule.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'Truth-in-Evidence' provision of the California Constitution (Proposition 8) abrogate the state-law exclusionary rule from People v. Disbrow, which barred the use of a defendant's statements obtained in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucas, C. J.
Yes, the 'Truth-in-Evidence' provision abrogates the Disbrow rule. Proposition 8 eliminates judicially created remedies for state constitutional violations, such as the Disbrow exclusionary rule, except to the extent that exclusion of evidence is compelled by the U.S. Constitution. The provision's savings clause for 'existing statutory rule[s] of evidence relating to privilege' does not preserve the Disbrow rule because Evidence Code section 940, which codifies the privilege against self-incrimination, merely acknowledges the existence of constitutional privileges but does not create the judicially-crafted remedial rule of exclusion. The court reasoned that Proposition 8 was specifically intended to abrogate judicial decisions like Disbrow that elevated the rights of criminal defendants beyond the floor set by the federal constitution, thereby bringing California law into conformity with the federal standard of Harris v. New York.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
No, the 'Truth-in-Evidence' provision does not abrogate the Disbrow rule. The dissent argued that the Disbrow rule is preserved by the savings clause in Proposition 8, which explicitly protects 'existing statutory rule[s] of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay.' Evidence Code sections 940 (privilege) and 1204 (hearsay) are statutory provisions that incorporate judicial interpretations of constitutional rights. By codifying the constitutional privilege as interpreted by the courts, these statutes effectively make the Disbrow rule a 'statutory rule' that is exempt from abrogation. Furthermore, the dissent strongly defended the policy rationale of Disbrow, arguing that the federal Harris rule provides an incentive for police to ignore Miranda requirements and undermines the privilege against self-incrimination.
Concurring - Eagleson, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's judgment that Proposition 8 abrogated the Disbrow rule. However, it expresses disagreement with the majority's characterization of the holding in Ramona R. v. Superior Court, clarifying that Ramona R. did, in fact, create a remedial exclusionary rule rather than simply defining the scope of a substantive right.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant retrenchment of California's independent state grounds jurisprudence in criminal procedure, aligning state law with federal constitutional standards. It confirms the broad impact of Proposition 8's 'Truth-in-Evidence' provision, which effectively prevents California courts from creating or maintaining evidence exclusion rules that are more protective of defendants' rights than what is required by the U.S. Constitution, unless such rules are enacted by the legislature. The case marks a major shift in California criminal law, limiting judicial power to expand constitutional protections and requiring litigants to ground evidence exclusion arguments primarily in federal law or specific statutory exceptions.
