Court Opinion

ID: 9856079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:37:46.414436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:00.048673
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
I disagree with the italicized portion of the following statement from the majority opinion: “The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution and article I, section 13, of the California Constitution guarantee a defendant the right to be represented by counsel in every stage of the proceedings, and deprivation of this guarantee may be a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. To constitute deprivation of due process, however, the denial of the right of the accused to he represented by counsel in every stage of the proceedings must have so fatally infected the regularity of his trial amd conviction as to violate the fundamental aspects of fairness and result in a miscarriage of justice. (Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 [62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166]; cf. Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181 at 197 [72 S.Ct. 599, 96 L.Ed. 872].)”
Part of the italicized statement is found in the Lisenba case. However, it affirmatively appears in the opinion in the Lisenba case (230, 231) that defendant had the advice of counsel at all times. The Supreme Court was there speaking of an allegedly coerced confession. It is said (pp. 236, 237): “As applied to a criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. In order to declare a denial of it we must find that the absence of that fairness fatally infected the trial; the acts complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial. Such unfairness exists when a coerced confession is used as a means of obtaining a verdict of guilt. We have so held in every instance in which we have set aside for want of due process a conviction based on a confession.”
In the Stroble case an allegedly coerced confession was also involved. There counsel was denied the privilege of consulting defendant during his interrogation by the district attorney. The Supreme Court said (at pages 197 and 198, citing the Lisenba case) that “Upon the facts of this case, we cannot hold that the illegal conduct of the law enforcement officers in not taking petitioner promptly before a committing magistrate, *359coerced the confession which he made in the District Attorney’s office or in any other way deprived him of a fair and impartial trial.
“As to the refusal of the prosecutors to admit counsel during their interrogation of petitioner, counsel stated that he had come to the District Attorney’s office at the request of petitioner’s son-in-law merely to inquire of petitioner as to his guilt. At no point did petitioner himself ask for counsel. In light of these facts, the District Attorney’s refusal to interrupt the examination of petitioner, which had been proceeding for almost an hour, so that counsel could make inquiry for petitioner’s son-in-law, does not constitute a deprivation of due process, either independently or in conjunction with all other circumstances in this case.” (Emphasis added.)
In In re Masching, 41 Cal.2d 530, 534 [261 P.2d 251], defendant requested counsel, and a continuance on the ground that he had been “confined to bed.” His request was denied. We there said that “Under all the circumstances this procedure amounted to a denial of petitioner’s constitutional right to counsel. It follows that his conviction cannot be permitted to stand and that he should be remanded to custody for further proceedings in the municipal court in conformity with his right to counsel. (In re McCoy, 32 Cal.2d 73, 76-77 [194 P.2d 531] ; see In re Egan, 24 Cal.2d 323, 337 [149 P.2d 693]; cf. People v. Lanigan, 22 Cal.2d 569, 572-577 [140 P.2d 24, 148 A.L.R. 176].) ” In People v. Lanigan, 22 Cal.2d 569, 575 [140 P.2d 24, 148 A.L.R. 176], we said, quoting from Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 75, 76 [62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680], “To determine the precise degree of prejudice sustained by Glasser as a result of the court’s appointment of Stewart as counsel for Kretske [a codefendant] is at once difficult and unnecessary. The right to heme the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial. [Citing cases.] ” (Emphasis added.) We continued: “Although the Sixth Amendment is applicable only to trials in federal courts (Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 [62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595]), the same right is protected in this state by article 1, section 13 of our Constitution providing that ‘In criminal prosecutions, in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend, in person and with counsel. ’ ”
In People v. Robinson, 42 Cal.2d 741, 745, 746 [269 P.2d 6], we again quoted from the Glasser case and the Lanigan *360case in reversing a judgment. “Even as we have held that the right to the assistance of counsel is so fundamental that the denial by a state court of a reasonable time to allow the selection of counsel of one’s own choosing, and the failure of that court to make an effective appointment of counsel, may so offend our concept of the basic requirements of a fair hearing as to amount to a denial of due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Emphasis added; 315 U.S. 60, 70.)
In view of the Glasser case and the California cases following it, it appears to me that the statement in the majority opinion heretofore set forth is incorrect. If we continue to follow the Glasser ease, we will find it “unnecessary” to determine the exact amount of prejudice arising from a denial to defendant of counsel at every stage of the proceeding in any court whatever! As was said in the Glasser case “The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.”
I have heretofore pointed out that the Stroble case is not like the case at bar since there the defendant did not himself ask for counsel. The citations of the Stroble and McCann (317 U.S. 269 [63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, 143 A.L.R. 435])* cases are, therefore, inapplicable here.
The defendant’s confession was undoubtedly an important factor in defendant’s conviction of the crime of which he was accused. The confession was made without benefit of counsel which had been requested by defendant. It appears to me that if our constitutional safeguards are to be observed, they should be observed to the letter. This concept is forcibly declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in a recent decision (Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 [76 S.Ct. 497, 100 L.Ed. 511), decided March 26, 1956). Mr. Justice Frankfurter speaking for the court stated (p. 501) : “Nothing new can be put into the Constitution except through the amendatory process. Nothing old can be taken out without the same process.
“No doubt the constitutional privilege may, on occasion, save a guilty man from his just deserts. It was aimed at a more far-reaching evil—a recurrence of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, even if not in their stark brutality. Pre*361vention of the greater evil was deemed of more importance than occurrence of the lesser evil. Having had much experience with a tendency in human nature to abuse power, the Founders sought to close the doors against like future abuses by law-enforcing agencies.
“As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion. It is appropriate to read the conviction expressed in a memorable address by Senator Albert J. Beveridge to the American Bar Association in 1920, a time when there was also manifested impatience with some of the restrictions of the Constitution in the presumed interest of security. His appeal was to the Constitution —to the whole Constitution, not to a mutilating selection of those parts only which for the moment find favor. [He said:] ‘If liberty is worth keeping and free representative government worth saving, we must stand for all American fundamentals—not some, but all. All are woven into the great fabric of our national well-being. We cannot hold fast to some only, and abandon others that, for the moment, we find inconvenient. If one American fundamental is prostrated, others in the end will surely fall. The success or failure of the American theory of society and government, depends upon our fidelity to every one of those inter-dependent parts of that immortal charter of orderly freedom, the Constitution of the United States.” (Beveridge, The Assault upon American Fundamentals, 45 Reports of American Bar Assn., 188, 216 [1920].) To view a particular provision of the Bill of Bights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution.”
I am of the opinion that defendant’s requested instruction relative to the jury’s disregard of the confession should have been given. Defendant was entitled to, and should have been accorded, the right to counsel at the time he made the confession. As a result, the confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and should not have been considered by the jury.
I would therefore reverse the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied December 19, 1956. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

The McCann ease was involved with the question of waiver of counsel and trial by jury.