California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Manduley v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 27 Cal.4th 537, 41 P.3d 3 (Cal. 2002):
Statutory provisions that predate the adoption of Proposition 21 cannot properly be interpreted to afford minors a statutory right that is inconsistent with the language and purpose of this legislative measure. Proposition 21 neglected to amend explicitly the jurisdictional provisions of section 6035 to clarify that a criminal
[117 Cal.Rptr.2d 189]
charge against a minor may be filed directly in a court of criminal jurisdiction pursuant to either the preexisting provisions of section 707.01 (as already provided in section 603, subdivision (b)) or the newly adopted provisions of section 707(d). In light of established principles of statutory construction, however, it is clear that because the provisions of section 707(d) are more recently enacted and more specific than the provisions of section 603, it is appropriate to harmonize the two statutes to effectuate the purpose of this aspect of Proposition 21. (See Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 464, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 860, 940 P.2d 311; DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 778, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019; Kaiser v. Hopkins (1936) 6 Cal.2d 537, 538, 58 P.2d 1278.) Accordingly, section 707(d) properly must be interpreted as creating an additional statutory exception to the general rule, reflected in section 603, subdivision (a), that criminal charges against minors ordinarily must be filed initially in juvenile court.[117 Cal.Rptr.2d 189]
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.