Clark v. Superior Court

Opinion

SILLS, P. J.

Article I, section 12 of our Constitution provides: “A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for: [f] (a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great; . . .” Petitioner Eric Deon Clark has been charged with a special circumstance murder, although the district attorney stated in writing that he would not seek the death penalty against Clark. Citing

In re Freeman

(1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 838 [162 Cal.Rptr. 423], the superior court held it lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bail hearing in this case because Clark had been indicted for a

[457]

crime which could have warranted the death penalty.

1

We believe the superior court read

Freeman

too broadly; under our Constitution, trial courts must determine whether “the facts are evident or the presumption great.” We therefore direct the superior court to conduct a bail hearing in this case.

Facts

Clark was indicted for, inter alia, murder committed during a commercial burglary and robbery.

2

The indictment alleged that the burglary and robbery were “special circumstances” under Penal Code section 190.2.

3

After petitioner was arraigned, the prosecutor sent a letter to Clark’s counsel stating that the People would not seek the death penalty against his client.

4

Clark then filed a motion to set bail. The People opposed these motions, relying on

In re Freeman, supra,

102 Cal.App.3d 838. The superior court believed it could not hold a bail hearing, stating: “This court, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly in making the decision of its conscience, believes that it is bound by the Freeman case and does not have jurisdiction to go further in this matter. H] I believe that this decision of the court would be reviewable at an early opportunity with the district court of appeal, and should the district court of appeal hold otherwise, then this court will certainly entertain the renewal of the motion upon an appellate direction that I have jurisdiction to do so.”