# People v. Adams

> California Supreme Court · December 9, 1993 · 6 Cal. 4th 570

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9531571

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESS DELREY ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 9, 1993
- **Citations:** 6 Cal. 4th 570; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 831; 93 Daily Journal DAR 15613; 862 P.2d 831; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9112; 1993 Cal. LEXIS 6011
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Arabian
- **Judges:** Baxter, Arabian
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9531571

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the admonishment and express waiver requirements not to be “applicable to an evidentiary stipulation which does not admit the truth of the allegation itself or every fact necessary [for liability to attach]”
- holding that whereas a personal colloquy is required for a guilty plea, it is not required for evidentiary stipulations that are not tantamount to a guilty plea
- holding that evidentiary stipulations not tantamount to a guilty plea are not subject to the colloquy applicable to the entry of guilty pleas

## Opinion text

ARABIAN, J.
I concur in the holding that no admonitions were required here. As noted by the majority, this was merely a factual stipulation that did not admit all the elements of the enhancement. This case does not present the more difficult question whether any factual stipulation, even one that admits all the elements of a charge or enhancement, requires admonitions. As noted in Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279-280 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ], a “plea of guilty is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts; it is itself a conviction; nothing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment.” On the other hand, a factual stipulation, no matter how comprehensive, is only a confession that certain facts are true; the jury must still convict, or find the enhancement true.
One might also question the need to explain to a defendant during a jury trial that he or she has a right to a jury trial, or to explain the right to cross-examine witnesses after defense counsel has already cross-examined witnesses, or even the privilege against self-incrimination after the defendant hears the court tell the jury the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution and the defendant may remain silent. What might not be obvious to a defendant about to plead guilty, and therefore necessary to explain, becomes self-evident during a jury trial. A bright-line rule that guilty pleas and admissions of the truth of enhancements require the admonitions, while factual stipulations never do, has much to commend it. Trial courts would *584 find the rule clear and easy to apply, and the admonitions would be given only where truly helpful.
I therefore do not join any dicta that the admonition requirement may ever extend to factual stipulations. I consider that still an open question.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9531571. Public record. Not legal advice.