IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Daniel Peter Masterson
,
Petitioner, v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
,
Respondent,
The People
,
Real Party in Interest.
Case No. S273763
 2d Dist. No. B318486 L.A.S.C. No. BA487932
 Answer to Petition for Review
GEORGE GASCÓN District Attorney of Los Angeles County Tracey Whitney Deputy District Attorney State Bar No. 174102 Elizabeth Marks Deputy District Attorney State Bar No. 245203 Writs and Appeals Division 320 West Temple Street, Suite 540 Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-5911 (213) 893-0236 (direct) (213) 217-9112 fax  Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
1
SupremeCourtofCaliforniaJorgeE.Navarrete,ClerkandExecutiveOfficeroftheCourtElectronicallyRECEIVEDon5/3/2022at9:33:37AM
SupremeCourtofCaliforniaJorgeE.Navarrete,ClerkandExecutiveOfficeroftheCourtElectronicallyFILEDon5/3/2022byM.Chang,DeputyClerk
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………..................
.........3
 SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND ARGUMENT……………………
.......5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………..
.......7
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS………………………………….
..........8
i. The charged incidents…………………………………………..
..........8
ii. Evidentiary rulings related to the Church………………..
..........
2
0
 iii. The magistrate’s holding at preliminary hearing……
...........
…2
6
 iv. The section 995 motion……………………………………….
.........
2
7
  ARGUMENT………………………………………………………...
.......28
 I. Review is Unwarranted Because the First Amendment is Not Implicated Here……………………………………………
.28
 
a.
 
The “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” does not apply as this case does not involve an interchurch dispute and the magistrate did not resolve an issue of religious law………
.28
 
b.
 
There was no violation of Petitioner’s right to free exercise of his religion……………………………………………...…….
.
3
5
 c.
 
There was no prejudice to Petitioner………………………..
.
3
7
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………
.39
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………
.
4
0
DECLARATION OF SERVICE……………………………………...
.
4
1
 
2
 
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
 
Carnes v. Smith
(1976) 236 Ga. 30 .......................................................................... 3
1
 
Employment
 
 Div., Dept. of Human Res, v. Smith
(1990) 494 U.S. 872 [108 L. Ed. 2d 876, 110 S. Ct. 1595]…….….3
2
 
Jones v. Wolf
(1979) 443 U.S. 595 [99 S. Ct. 3020, 61 L. Ed. 2d 775]……....
29
, 3
1
 
Maryland
 
and Virginia Eldership v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc.
 (1970) 396 U.S. 367 [90 S.Ct. 499, 24 L.Ed.2d 582]………………3
0
 
 Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc
. (9th Cir. 1987) 819 F.2d 875………………………………………….
28
 
 Presbyterian Church in United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church
 (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658]...…………….
29
 
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
 (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 417………………………………..3
2
, 3
3
, 3
7
 
Torcaso v. Watkins
 (1961) 367 U.S. 488 [6 L. Ed. 2d 982, 81 S. Ct. 1680]…………….3
6
 
Watson v. Jones
 (1871) 80 U.S. 679[20 L. Ed. 666, 1871 US LEXIS 1383]…….....3
0
 
Statutes
Pen. Code § 261(a)(2)…………………………………………………
.
…
7
 Pen. Code § 352………………………………………………………
.
...1
2
 Pen. Code § 667.61…………………………………………………
.
……
7
 Pen. Code § 995…………………………………………….
..........5,
7, 2
7
 
3
View on Scribd