rather careful inquiry in California

1986We begin our analysis with People v. Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 573, in which Justice Gardner included among many other suggestions for conducting a thorough Faretta hearing, “[i]f there is any question in the court’s mind as to a defendant’s mental capacity it would appear obvious that a rather careful inquiry into that subject should be made—probably by way of a psychiatric examination. ” But as Justice Gardner himself indicated, in making his suggestions, he did not wish “to appear pedantic” nor “establish any horrendously complex or rigid standards such as now exist in the taking of

1986We begin our analysis with People v. Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 573, in which Justice Gardner included among many other suggestions for conducting a thorough Faretta hearing, “[i]f there is any question in the court’s mind as to a defendant’s mental capacity it would appear obvious that a rather careful inquiry into that subject should be made—probably by way of a psychiatric examination. ” But as Justice Gardner himself indicated, in making his suggestions, he did not wish “to appear pedantic” nor “establish any horrendously complex or rigid standards such as now exist in the taking of

1986We begin our analysis with People v. Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 573, in which Justice Gardner included among many other suggestions for conducting a thorough Faretta hearing, “[i]f there is any question in the court’s mind as to a defendant’s mental capacity it would appear obvious that a rather careful inquiry into that subject should be made—probably by way of a psychiatric examination. ” But as Justice Gardner himself indicated, in making his suggestions, he did not wish “to appear pedantic” nor “establish any horrendously complex or rigid standards such as now exist in the taking of

1986We begin our analysis with People v. Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 573, in which Justice Gardner included among many other suggestions for conducting a thorough Faretta hearing, “[i]f there is any question in the court’s mind as to a defendant’s mental capacity it would appear obvious that a rather careful inquiry into that subject should be made—probably by way of a psychiatric examination. ” But as Justice Gardner himself indicated, in making his suggestions, he did not wish “to appear pedantic” nor “establish any horrendously complex or rigid standards such as now exist in the taking of

1986In so holding, the court agreed with the language in Lopez that where such capacity is questioned, a careful inquiry into the subject should be made. ( Ibid. ) However, the court also emphasized that the determination of a defendant's competence in this area is within the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse thereof. ( Ibid. ) Court of Appeal decisions after Lopez shed further light on the type of evidence which should trigger a questioning of the defendant's capacity to waive counsel, as well as the degree of examination nec

1986In so holding, the court agreed with the language in Lopez that where such capacity is questioned, a careful inquiry into the subject should be made. ( Ibid. ) However, the court also emphasized that the determination of a defendant's competence in this area is within the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse thereof. ( Ibid. ) Court of Appeal decisions after Lopez shed further light on the type of evidence which should trigger a questioning of the defendant's capacity to waive counsel, as well as the degree of examination nec

1982Westbrook has subsequently been interpreted as authority for the proposition that, unlike the standard used in determining mental competency for purposes of trial, the applicable standard governing the validity of a waiver of the right to counsel requires a finding that defendant is “ ‘free of mental disorder which would so impair his free will that his decision to waive counsel would not be voluntary’ [Citation].” {Curry v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 221, 227 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 884 ]; accord People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534, 544-545 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 643 ]; see also People v. Tero

1982Westbrook has subsequently been interpreted as authority for the proposition that, unlike the standard used in determining mental competency for purposes of trial, the applicable standard governing the validity of a waiver of the right to counsel requires a finding that defendant is “ ‘free of mental disorder which would so impair his free will that his decision to waive counsel would not be voluntary’ [Citation].” {Curry v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 221, 227 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 884 ]; accord People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534, 544-545 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 643 ]; see also People v. Tero