The Prosecution of 14- and 15-Year-Old Minors and SB 1391: Proposition 57, enacted by the voters in November of 2016, amended Welf. & Insti. Code §§ 602 and 707, requiring prosecutors to commence all cases involving minors in Juvenile Court, but allowed the People to request the transfer of some minors as young as 14 years of age—when alleged to have committed specified serious or violent felonies (see W&I § 707(b)—from Juvenile Court to Adult Criminal Court where they faced the full brunt of the criminal justice system.  This was in an era when the prevailing belief was that criminals should be treated more and more like criminals, no matter what their age (at least down to the age of 14), while victims’ rights were respected and emphasized.  But then along came Senate Bill 1391, enacted by the Legislature in 2018 and effective January 1, 2019, amending Proposition 57 by prohibiting altogether the prosecution of 14- and 15-year-old minors in adult court. (See W&I § 707(a)(1)-(2).)  Believing that SB 1391 violated the voters’ wishes and was inconsistent with the requirements of Proposition 57, the Ventura County District Attorney filed a juvenile petition against a 15-year old gang member referred to as “O.G.”, alleging multiple murders and other violent crimes.  At the same time, the D.A. moved to transfer O.G.’s case from Juvenile to Adult Court, ignoring the prohibition for doing so as provided in Senate Bill 1391.  The D.A.’s argument was that SB 1391 was unconstitutional in that it violated the People’s will as expressed in Proposition 57.  The Juvenile Court, and later the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6), agreed. (See O.G. v. Superior Court (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 626.)  However, five (and later seven) other Court of Appeal panels all disagreed, pushing the issue up before the California Supreme Court for resolution.  The California Supreme Court ruled on February 25th (in O.G. v. Superior Court (Feb. 25, 2021) __ Cal.5th __ [2021 Cal. LEXIS 1411]) that the Ventura D.A. was wrong and that SB 1391 prevailed, requiring that O.G. remain under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.  In so ruling, California’s High Court pointed out that while an Initiative-imposed statute (such as with Proposition 57) may not generally be amended or repealed by the Legislature, the California Constitution provides an exception; i.e., when the Initiative itself allows for its repeal or amendment. (See Cal. Const. art. II, § 10, subd. (c).) In this case, in an uncodified amendment clause, Proposition 57 specifically provides that its provisions concerning the treatment of juveniles “may be amended so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this act by a statute that is passed by a majority vote of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.”  The California Supreme Court found this exception to apply in this situation, mandating that SB 1391 take precedence over Prop. 57.  So much for the will of the People.  One can only wonder now whether SB 1391’s principal author, then State Senator Ricardo Lara (now Insurance Commissioner, presumably elevated as a reward for all his good work), is going to take the gangster O.G. (described by the Second District Court of Appeal as a person who, “despite his age, is deeply enmeshed in youth gang culture.” Id. at p. 628.) into his household when the little fart is released at the age of 25 (see W&I Code § 607(c)), sometime within the next eight years, and when he otherwise wouldn’t have been back out on the streets for at least another 50 years when he would be too old to murder anyone again.