# People v. Diaz

> California Supreme Court · August 31, 1992 · 3 Cal. 4th 495

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593438

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT RUBANE DIAZ, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 31, 1992
- **Citations:** 3 Cal. 4th 495; 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 353; 92 Daily Journal DAR 12202; 834 P.2d 1171; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7520; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 4144
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Panelli
- **Judges:** Kennard, Panelli, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 221 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/9593438

## Opinion text

PANELLI, J., Concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the court. However, I believe People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] was wrongly decided and should be overruled insofar as it purports to require a “separate” waiver of the right to jury trial of special circumstance allegations.
There are two phases of a capital trial: guilt and penalty. Findings as to the defendant’s guilt and any special circumstance allegations generally are made on the basis of the evidence adduced during the first phase. (Pen. Code, § 190.1, subd. (a) [“If the trier of fact finds the defendant guilty of *577 first degree murder, it shall at the same time determine the truth of all special circumstances” charged, except as to an allegation under § 190.2, subd. (a)(2); italics added.], and § 190.4, subd. (a).) The sole exception relates to charged prior-murder special-circumstance allegations. (§§ 190.1, subd. (b), 190.2, subd. (a)(2).) Apart from that limited exception, a valid waiver of jury trial in the guilt phase, in my view, suffices to waive jury trial of special circumstance allegations. In fids case, defendant validly waived his right to a jury as to both phases of trial. No more was required.
Arabian, J., and George, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593438. Public record. Not legal advice.