"whether the investigation ha[d] focused on the" person being questioned is among the "most important considerations" in assessing whether the person was in custody
How later courts described this case
- "whether the investigation ha[d] focused on the" person being questioned is among the "most important considerations" in assessing whether the person was in custody
- conc. and dis. opn. of Mosk, J.
- conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNARD, J.,Concurring.
The trial court in this case refused to permit the self-represented defendant to stand mute during the trial. In this respect, the case is indistinguishable from People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 554 , 833 P.2d 561 ], in which this court held that a trial court may terminate self-representation if the pro se defendant’s announced intention to stand mute is “part of a deliberate course of conduct designed to cause as much disruption as possible.” (Id. at p. 116.) I thought this court was wrong *1073 (see id. at pp. 174-180 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.)), and I continue to think so. But repetition of dissenting views is rarely justified, and therefore I “yield to the obligation ... to live with the law as it has been stated.” (Traynor, Some Open Questions on the Work of State Appellate Courts (1957) 24 U.Chi.L.Rev. 211, 219; but see also Brennan, In Defense of Dissents (1986) 37 Hastings LJ. 427, 436-437.) On the basis of stare decisis, I concur in the majority opinion.