# People v. Stansbury

> California Supreme Court · March 8, 1993 · 4 Cal. 4th 1017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604225

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT EDWARD STANSBURY, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 8, 1993
- **Citations:** 4 Cal. 4th 1017; 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 174; 93 Daily Journal DAR 3164; 846 P.2d 756; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1717; 1993 Cal. LEXIS 869
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennard
- **Judges:** Kennard, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 118 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604225

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604225. Public record. Not legal advice.