# People v. Weaver

> California Supreme Court · August 22, 1985 · 39 Cal. 3d 654

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599860

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD N. WEAVER, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 22, 1985
- **Citations:** 39 Cal. 3d 654; 217 Cal. Rptr. 245; 703 P.2d 1139; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 328
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bird
- **Judges:** Lucas, Bird, Broussard
- **Cited by:** 22 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/9599860

## Opinion text

BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree that Proposition 8 applies to this case and that the exclusionary remedy adopted in People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 384 , 533 P.2d 1024 ] survives that legislation. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 658-660; Ramona R. v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 802, 808-811 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 204 , 693 P.2d 789 ].)
However, the practice of holding a probationer’s revocation hearing before the trial on the charge which gives rise to the revocation proceeding violates both the due process guarantee of our state Constitution and the privilege against self-incrimination. (Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 7, subd. (a) & 15.) The probationer’s right to present a defense and to testify in his own behalf at the hearing is literally forfeited. The probationer must choose between (1) remaining silent and virtually assuring an adverse finding in the revocation proceeding or (2) exercising his right to defend himself with the result that the prosecution will be given an opportunity to discover any evidence it wishes which relates to the pending charge.
This court should hold that, absent a waiver by the probationer, revocation proceedings must be conducted after disposition of the criminal charge on which the revocation proceeding is based. (See People v. Jasper (1983) 33 Cal.3d 931, 936-942 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 648 , 663 P.2d 206 ] (dis. opn. of Bird, C. J.).)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599860. Public record. Not legal advice.