if police inquiry about defendant’s wanting dinner had carried suggestion that dinner would be provided only on making confession, confession would be involuntary
How later courts described this case
- if police inquiry about defendant’s wanting dinner had carried suggestion that dinner would be provided only on making confession, confession would be involuntary
- setting forth principles of statutory interpretation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with my colleague, Justice Mosk, that a minor cannot be legally sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, I cannot agree with his interpretation of the requirements of People v. Pettingill (1978) 21 Cal.3d 231 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 861 , 578 P.2d 108 ] and Dunaway v. New York (1979) 442 U.S. 200 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 824 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 ] as they apply to this case. Pettingill requires that “‘custodial interrogation wholly cease when the suspect indicates in any manner that he wishes to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege.’” (Pettingill, supra, at p. 239 ,
*836 quoting People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2d 522, 535 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 450 P.2d 580 , 40 A.L.R.3d 1323 ]. (Italics added.) It is, indeed, sad to see the author of the fine opinion in Pettingill begin a full-scale retreat from the principles enunciated in that case.