DEATH PENALTY PROPOSALS TO BE PUT IN HANDS OF VOTERS.

Byline: Terri Hardy Sacramento Bureau

Two initiatives that would expand death penalty provisions will be put before voters on the March 2000 ballot.

Capital punishment opponents say they will aggressively work toward defeating both measures, viewing the fight as their first step toward eliminating state-sanctioned executions in California.

Law enforcement officials, however, say state voters overwhelmingly support the death penalty and are likely to embrace the tougher laws.

``Nothing on the horizon would bring about a change in that position,'' said Pete Kossoris, senior attorney for the Ventura County District Attorney's Office, a sponsor of one of the initiatives.

His initiative would amend the penal code to broaden the circumstances when the death penalty may be sought in murders that include kidnapping, arson or lying in wait.

The measure was prompted by a Ventura County case in which Diana Haun was convicted of kidnapping Sherri Dally, a mother of two, and killing her and leaving her body in a rural area. Evidence showed that Haun, who was having an affair with the victim's husband, planned the abduction.

Kossoris said Haun was exempted from the death penalty because of an odd twist in the law: she kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing her. If she had abducted the woman for another reason, she could face execution, Kossoris said.

``I would talk to people who said this was absolutely crazy, and they were

absolutely right,'' Kossoris said. ``The law is totally backward and needs to be changed.''

Several civil liberties groups have gone on record in opposition to the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, charging that execution is a violation of the Constitution because it denies equal protection under the law, is cruel and unusual punishment and removes guarantees of due process of law.

Steve Birdlebough, legislative advocate for the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, said the death penalty is unjust because of the arbitrary way it is applied.

``The O.J. Simpson case is a perfect example,'' Birdlebough said. ``It was clear he was getting a defense that most defendants don't get. Two people were killed and no one sought the death penalty.''

A state analysis of the fiscal impact of the initiative concluded that it is unclear how much the state's costs would increase for housing more prisoners and funding more death penalty appeals.

The second initiative on the March ballot would allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty in a gang-related killing, as part of a larger juvenile crime measure.

Sponsored by former Gov. Pete Wilson, the measure would result in ``unknown major net costs to the state of at least hundreds of millions of dollars annually and one-time costs of at least several hundreds of millions of dollars,'' according to a Legislative Analyst's Office report.

While it does not address the death penalty provisions specifically, the report finds that the tougher gang laws would mean ``gang members staying in prison longer.''

However, the report notes that the cost of the measure could be offset somewhat ``from unknown, potential savings to state and local governments'' because offenders are off the streets.