Justices to Rule on Legality of Prop. 115 : Criminal law: High court will hear arguments on sweeping changes in the system. But it allows implementation to continue in meantime.

SAN FRANCISCO â€”  The state Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a far-reaching challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 115, the sweeping criminal justice reform initiative approved by the voters on June 5.

In a setback to opponents of the measure, the justices refused to block the continued implementation of the initiative while they determine its legality.

The court directed attorneys in the case to file written briefs by Aug. 1, but did not announce when oral arguments will be held. In view of the statewide importance of the issue, a decision is expected by late summer or early fall.

The brief order announcing the impending review came in response to a request by the office of state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, asking the high court to bypass lower courts and rule immediately on legal questions raised by the initiative.

The order granting the review was signed by all seven justices. A separate order, denying a request for a stay to block enforcement of the measure, was signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas without dissent.

Chief Assistant Atty. Gen. Richard B. Iglehart welcomed the high court’s action and expressed confidence in the constitutionality of the measure. There is “ample precedent,� he said, for the justices’ refusal to issue a stay delaying enforcement of the measure.

“These issues are important and need to be addressed promptly because they are being raised almost on a daily basis throughout California,� he said.

Melanie C. Gold of San Francisco, one of the lawyers representing foes of Proposition 115, welcomed the action and said she hopes a decision will be issued soon.

Proposition 115, enacted with a 57% majority vote, provides a broad range of constitutional and statutory reforms limiting the rights of criminal defendants and attempting to reduce delays in criminal proceedings. The initiative limits the state constitutional rights of criminal defendants to the generally less expansive protections required by the U.S. Supreme Court under the federal Constitution.

Among other things, the measure eliminates the right to a preliminary hearing after a grand jury indictment; provides for questioning of prospective jurors by a judge rather than attorneys; and requires court-appointed attorneys and public defenders to be ready for trial within strict time limits.

The scope of the death penalty also would be expanded. Death sentences would be permitted for the killing of a witness to prevent testimony in a juvenile proceeding, and accomplices in felony murders could be sent to the gas chamber without a finding that they had intended a killing to occur.

Soon after its enactment, the measure drew a series of challenges by defense attorneys in trial courts throughout the state. Opponents claimed, among other things, that the initiative should be applied only in cases where the crimes occurred after the proposition was passed. Asked three times to intervene in the disputes, the state Supreme Court refused to review the challenges, allowing the measure’s procedural changes to apply to all pending cases, at least for the time being.

The case the justices acted on Tuesday was filed June 15 in a state Court of Appeal by former American Bar Assn. President Robert D. Raven of San Francisco; Santa Clara University law dean, Gerald F. Uelmen; and former federal public defender James F. Hewitt of San Francisco.

In the suit, opponents argue that the proposition violates a constitutional requirement that ballot measures be limited to a single subject. Further, they said, the proposition is so sweeping in scope that it amounts to a revision of the Constitution, rather than an amendment, and as such could not be enacted through an initiative.

An analysis by lawyers in the attorney general’s office concluded that the measure did not violate either of the constitutional provisions cited by opponents.

The suit did not seek a ruling on whether the procedures mandated in the initiative can be applied in trials of crimes that occurred before passage of the initiative. Over defense objections, some judges have taken over the questioning of prospective jurors from attorneys or allowed police officers to present hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings.

Iglehart said that even though the suit does not raise the issue, the high court could decide whether the initiative may be applied to crimes occuring before its passage.

Foes said the measure could be interpreted to eliminate more than 30 state constitutional guarantees that have given Californians more protection than under the U.S. Constitution. The initiative lists 12 rights--ranging from the right to due process of law to the right of privacy--that would be subject to limitation.