Does Proposition 47, properly read, necessarily cover every offense that one might believe to be less serious than petty theft or simple drug possession?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bullard, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 153, 460 P.3d 262, 9 Cal.5th 94 (Cal. 2020):
Our holding today does not mean that Proposition 47, properly read, necessarily covers every offense that one might believe to be less serious than petty theft or simple drug possession. We are not at liberty to rewrite the initiative to enact our own view of provisions that might have improved it, or that would have better vindicated its stated purpose of reducing punishment for low-level crimes, and we do not do so here. (See People v. Martinez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 647, 653655, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 673, 413 P.3d 1125.) Nor should our holding be taken to suggest that the term "theft," in general, carries anything other than its settled meaning.
Our holding today is narrow, and specific to the interaction between Proposition
[460 P.3d 271]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
