# People v. Garcia

> California Supreme Court · July 29, 1999 · 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627689

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWIN GILMORE GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 29, 1999
- **Citations:** 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 114; 21 Cal. 4th 1; 99 Daily Journal DAR 7715; 980 P.2d 829; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6033; 1999 Cal. LEXIS 4846
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Werdegar, Baxter, Brown
- **Cited by:** 154 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627689

## Opinion text

*16 MOSK, J.
I concur in the majority opinion.
I write merely to concede that no governmental system is without possibility of error or omission.
In People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 685 , 704 P.2d 752 ], I wrote at some length on my own behalf to suggest that the grievous error made in an initiative measure—using “and” instead of “or” in a crucial context—would not have been made if the proposal had advanced its laborious way through the legislative process. I observed that the obvious error “would have been discovered in the traditional legislative process. In an assembly committee, on the floor of the assembly, in a senate committee, on the floor of the senate, in the Governor’s veto opportunity, such inadvertence would likely have been detected, or if the choice of words was deliberate, such intent would have been clearly declared. In an initiative measure, however, no revision opportunity is possible and no legislative intent is available . . . .” (Id. at p. 785 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).)
In the instant matter, we have an enigmatic result, attributable at least in part to the very legislative process I extolled so enthusiastically in Skinner .
I now reach the inevitable conclusion that no process, however well structured, is certain to be free of potential error or uncertainty. Skinner was one example. The instant case is but another.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627689. Public record. Not legal advice.