noting that when there is a promise to do something “without such intention, 18 there is an implied misrepresentation of fact”
How later courts described this case
- noting that when there is a promise to do something “without such intention, 18 there is an implied misrepresentation of fact”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390 (2009)
12 Cal.4th 1, 34 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22
Disapproved on other grounds by Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453 (1999)
12 Cal. 4th 1, 83-85 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by People v. Doolin, 45 21 Cal. 4th 390
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment.
I write separately to prevent any misapprehension on the part of the reader as to the meaning of People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 66 , 737 P.2d 1350 ], and the vitality of People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 729 P.2d 260 ]. Both Hendricks and Wright deal with the requirement of Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ], and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ], that, under specified circumstances, a trial court must obtain from a criminal defendant a personal, on-the-record waiver of certain of his rights under the United States Constitution—namely, his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to a jury trial, and his right to confront adverse witnesses. Hendricks expressly holds that those circumstances obtain “only when the defendant agrees to a submission procedure . . . by virtue of which he surrenders one or more of the three specified rights.” (People v. Hendricks, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 592.) It impliedly holds *86 that the court must take a waiver only as to the right or rights actually surrendered. To the extent that Wright, which was decided earlier, is to the contrary, it is no longer good law.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 21, 1996, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.