People v. Kramer, Cr. 8055
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | JEFFERSON; BURKE, P. J., and KINGSLEY |
| Citation | 38 Cal.Rptr. 487,227 Cal.App.2d 199 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8055 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas D. KRAMER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Page 487
v.
Thomas D. KRAMER, Defendant and Appellant.
Hearing Denied July 8, 1964.
Stiles Wegener, Palos Verdes Estates, under appointment by District Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Peter H. F. Graber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
JEFFERSON, Justice.
By information, defendant was charged with one count of robbery and four counts of forgery. The information also alleged a prior felony conviction. In a jury trial, in which defendant chose to represent himself in propria persona, he was found guilty as charged. Thereafter, the robbery count was dismissed, defendant's motion for new trial, as to the counts charging him with forgery, was denied, as was probation, and he was sentenced to the state prison [227 Cal.App.2d 200] for the term prescribed by law, the sentences on each count to run concurrently. 1
No issue is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. The single contention made by defendant's court appointed counsel is that the trial court erred by failing to advise defendant, who represented himself at the trial, of his privilege against self-incrimination as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution. It is urged that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court had the duty to advise defendant of his right not to take the witness stand to testify in his own defense.
A resume of the instructions given by the trial judge during the course of the trial, relative to defendant's testifying, follows: At the inception of the trial, before the jury was called, the judge asked the defendant whether he wished to admit or deny a prior conviction alleged in the information. At this time the judge advised
Page 488
him, 'If you admit the fact of this prior felony, the fact of this felony or conviction, if such is the case, can only be brought out if you take the witness stand on your own behalf.' The court then stated: 'The district attorney cannot before the jury bring out any evidence of this prior felony if it is now admitted. He can, however, even if it is admitted, in the event you take the stand on your own behalf, then ask you the question of whether or not you have ever been convicted of a felony, which is admissible in the matter of impeaching you.' After the prosecution had presented its case, the court instructed defendant:'Mr. Kramer (defendant), as I previously explained to you, this is the defendant's time to proceed with his case. You may, if you desire, make an opening statement, and then proceed wth your evidence.'
MR. KRAMER: 'In other words, take the stand?'
THE COURT: 'As I have told you, you will also have an opportunity to sum up the case. Do you wish to make an [227 Cal.App.2d 201] opening statement to the jury, or do you wish to go onto the witness stand, or do you wish to call some witness?'
When defendant continued to question the procedure to be followed in putting on his defense, the court further instructed him:
'You are entitled to make a statement to the jury as to what, in your opinion, the evidence which you will introduce will show. Following that you may, if you desire, either take the stand yourself or call any witness that you have. I am merely outlining the procedure. Now, what you do is, of course, for you and you alone to determine.' After making an opening statement, defendant took the witness stand. Before giving his testimony however, he asked if the deputy district attorney would 'interrogate' him. The court replied that the prosecutor 'has the right to interrogate you on the things that you testify to on direct--or your own examination.'
Though it is apparent that the court properly advised defendant that he had various procedural alternatives which he could follow in presenting his case, nowhere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Daniels, S095868
...64 P.3d 788 ( Barnum ) [disapproving Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146, 314 P.2d 164 and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487 ].) That rule, known as the Killpatrick - Kramer rule—which did not mandate advisements for represented defendants but ......
-
People v. Hill, Cr. 10808
...counsel need not inform his client of a particular right prior to waiving it for him. (See People v. Page 241 [429 P.2d 593] Kramer, 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 201, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487.) Although counsel at the present sanity hearing called no witnesses, presented no evidence, did not seek to cross-e......
-
People v. Glaser, Cr. 4883
...testify, and the fact the accused voluntarily takes the stand does not constitute a waiver of the privilege. (People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 201-[238 Cal.App.2d 829] 203, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487; Killpatrick v. Superior Court, supra, 153 Cal.App.2d 146, 149-151, 314 P.2d 164; and see ......
-
People v. Barnum, No. C031302.
...error consists of failure by a trial court to warn an unrepresented defendant of his right not to testify. (People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487.) This followed the Killpatrick decision (Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146, 314 P.2d 164) which con......
-
People v. Daniels, S095868
...64 P.3d 788 ( Barnum ) [disapproving Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146, 314 P.2d 164 and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487 ].) That rule, known as the Killpatrick - Kramer rule—which did not mandate advisements for represented defendants but ......
-
People v. Hill, Cr. 10808
...counsel need not inform his client of a particular right prior to waiving it for him. (See People v. Page 241 [429 P.2d 593] Kramer, 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 201, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487.) Although counsel at the present sanity hearing called no witnesses, presented no evidence, did not seek to cross-e......
-
People v. Glaser, Cr. 4883
...testify, and the fact the accused voluntarily takes the stand does not constitute a waiver of the privilege. (People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 201-[238 Cal.App.2d 829] 203, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487; Killpatrick v. Superior Court, supra, 153 Cal.App.2d 146, 149-151, 314 P.2d 164; and see ......
-
People v. Barnum, No. C031302.
...error consists of failure by a trial court to warn an unrepresented defendant of his right not to testify. (People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199, 38 Cal.Rptr. 487.) This followed the Killpatrick decision (Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146, 314 P.2d 164) which con......