The opinion
MOSK, J.
I concur.
I cannot agree that the trial judge, in reciting the grounds for a motion for new trial (Pen. Code, § 1181), misinformed or misled the defendant. Coming to subdivision 6, the court said, inter alia, “You are not concerned with the degree. You feel you are innocent entirely, and that the verdict is contrary to the evidence in general.” (Italics added.) That was — and still is — precisely the contention of the defendant, and the court’s comment could not reasonably be interpreted to mean, as the majority assert, “that defendant was not concerned with subdivision 6. ’ ’
Nevertheless, I conclude, as do the majority, that the judgment must be reversed. However inept defendant may have' been in expressing views on the law and facts in urging his motion for new trial, the evidence was indeed insufficient to support a judgment of guilt. I would also hold that the court made inadequate inquiry to ascertain the competence of defendant to represent himself. (People v. Carter (1967) 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson (1965) 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ]; In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; *761 People v. Chesser (1947) 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 276 ].)