Just last month, the Supreme Court found the state constitution was violated by part of a new state law that required presidential candidates to release their tax returns. Today, in People v. Guzman, the court nixes on state constitutional grounds part of yet another statute, Penal Code section 632, which generally bars the unconsented-to recording of “a confidential communication.” In doing so, the court finds nothing wrong with a child molestation conviction that followed the jury hearing a recording a victim’s mother made of a conversation she had with the defendant’s niece.
The section 632 subdivision in issue is an exclusionary rule, prohibiting the use in evidence of confidential communication recordings. That would clearly bar admission of the mother’s recording. The court’s unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye concludes, however, the prohibition could no longer apply in criminal cases after 1982 when the voters amended the constitution with Proposition 8, including a “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision, which, with certain exceptions, says, “relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding.”
The Truth-in-Evidence provision allows for it to be amended by statute enacted with a two-thirds legislative vote and, since 1982, the Legislature has several times reenacted section 632 with super-majority votes. However, the court concludes those actions didn’t reinstate section 632’s evidentiary prohibition because the reenactments came when the Legislature substantively amended parts of the statute other than the evidentiary prohibition. “More than technical reenactment is needed to overcome Proposition 8,” the court says.
The court affirms the Second District, Division Three, Court of Appeal.