April 14, 2001

Proposition 21 is constitutional because its many parts have a common purpose -- "the need to modify the justice system to respond to serious and violent juvenile crime" -- prosecutors argued in court papers filed yesterday.

The 21-page brief was filed in response to a challenge filed by attorneys for Charles "Andy" Williams, who is facing trial as an adult in the March 5 Santana High School shootings.

Williams' attorneys say Proposition 21, which mandates the adult proceeding, is unconstitutional on several grounds. They want Williams, 15, tried in Juvenile Court, where he would face less severe penalties if convicted.

Coverage of the Santana High School shooting

Williams faces two counts of murder, 13 counts of attempted murder and firearms charges in connection with the shootings.

He also is facing allegations of committing multiple murders and committing murder by lying in wait, which could carry additional penalties.

He is accused of opening fire in a boys restroom with a handgun and reloading several times before police subdued him. Randy Gordon, 17, and Bryan Zuckor, 14, were killed.

Williams could be sentenced to 500 years to life in prison if convicted of all charges as an adult. If convicted in Juvenile Court he could be held until age 25, though prosecutors could try to keep him in custody beyond then.

Attorneys for Williams say Proposition 21, passed by voters last year, violates the state's single-subject rule requiring that a ballot proposition cover only one subject area.

In the papers filed yesterday, Deputy District Attorney Kristin Anton replied that the proposition passes constitutional muster because its many parts are "reasonably germane" to each other and "constitute a focused response to juvenile and gang-related crime."

She referred to other voter-approved measures that brought sweeping reforms to the criminal justice system and that also covered many areas. Proposition 115, adopted in 1990, dealt with hearsay, trial dates and other subjects, and was upheld by the state Supreme Court.

Williams' attorneys also said the provision of the law that mandates adult trials for some youths violated the separation of powers doctrine.

Proposition 21 created two ways for youths to be tried as adults. One provision gave prosecutors case-by-case discretion to determine whether a youth would be tried as a juvenile or adult. Previously, that determination was made by a judge following a court hearing.

That provision has been struck down by a San Diego appeals court ruling in the case of eight Rancho Peñasquitos teen-agers charged in the beating of migrant workers.

The appeals court ruled that handing prosecutors the power to determine where a juvenile's case would be heard violated the separation of powers doctrine. The District Attorney's Office has asked the state Supreme Court to review that ruling.

A second provision of the law required youths charged with certain crimes to automatically be tried as adults. That is the provision under which Williams is charged.

Allowing prosecutors to determine whether a special-circumstance charge will be attached to a murder charge, the attorneys argue, effectively allows a prosecutor to determine if a youth will be tried as an adult or a juvenile.

Anton argued that courts long have recognized the discretion prosecutors have to bring charges and found it does not violate the separation of powers. She also said that in the Rancho Peñasquitos appeals decision, defense attorneys acknowledged the mandatory adult trial provision of the law was constitutional.

Prosecutors also countered a defense argument that sentencing youths as young as 16 to state prison amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Anton said youths sentenced as adults are segregated from adult prisoners. Those between 16 and 18 are housed in a Youthful Offender Program in Tehachapi, and those between 14 and 16 are housed with the California Youth Authority.

A hearing on the challenge is scheduled Friday in El Cajon Superior Court.