Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Boykin-Tahl

Text: Finally, defendant contends that because his statements to police on July 28 and August 2, 1982, constituted a full confession of guilt, those statements should be deemed inadmissible because police failed to obtain specific waivers as to each constitutional right he was forfeiting by confessing, analogizing to the legal requirements applicable to guilty pleas. ( Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449.) [6] No state or federal authority exists for extending the protections of Boykin and Tahl to extrajudicial confessions. Nor is such extension necessary. The warning required by Miranda adequately informs an accused of his right against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution, and police here obtained a waiver of that right from defendant. The other rights an accused waives by pleading guiltythe right to a jury trial and to confront one's accusers ( Boykin v. Alabama, supra, 395 U.S. at p. 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709)are not lost by providing police with an out-of-court confession. The confession thus did not necessitate a prophylactic Boykin -type warning.