# Tapia v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · April 1, 1991 · 53 Cal. 3d 282

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633728

## Case

- **Full name:** ROBERT ALAN TAPIA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 1, 1991
- **Citations:** 53 Cal. 3d 282; 279 Cal. Rptr. 592; 91 Daily Journal DAR 3773; 807 P.2d 434; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2384; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1210
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Broussard
- **Judges:** Panelli, Mosk, Broussard
- **Cited by:** 367 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/9633728

## Opinion text

BROUSSARD,J.
—I dissent for the reasons stated by Justice Mosk in part II of his dissenting opinion.
I must also dissent for an additional reason. It is manifestly unfair for the majority to change the rules after the votes are in. In People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 667 P.2d 149 ], we established that multifaceted criminal law reform initiatives would be applied only to crimes committed on or after the effective date of the initiative. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or confusion as to the application of the Smith rule to Proposition 115.
*314 Our Smith decision in effect told the proponents and the opponents of Proposition 115 that its provisions would apply prospectively and would not apply to crimes committed prior to its effective date. More importantly, we in effect told the voters that they need not consider whether some provisions might be applied to pending matters and, if so, the fairness of such application.
We break faith with the voters when we repudiate the Smith rule and apply new rules after the voters have adopted the initiative.
We must presume that the voters fully understood that the provisions of Proposition 115 would not apply to crimes committed before its effective date. Certainly the drafters so understood. That understanding is repudiated by today’s decision.
Many people object to changing rules in the midst of the game. But all should object to changing the rules after the game is over—after the votes are in.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633728. Public record. Not legal advice.